"The budget problem is to match Americans' appetite for government
benefits with a willingness to be taxed."The article in a
nutshell.We like our government Stuff, but we hate paying for it.And I have yet to see groups begging govt to cut their benefit.(with the exception of the guy who said "get your govt hands off my
I am sure it has already been noticed, but were talking Billions... not
Millions, right.The problem isn't just the narrow 12 items
Samuelson notes as "entitlements", but there are many many more items
that people feel entitled to. A free education for their kids through high
school. Subsidized college. Fire protection. Free and open access to our
National Parks - and from what we have seen to be able to do what they want in
our State Parks. Ranchers feel entitled to use public lands to graze their
herds. Farmers feel entitled to certain farm subsidies. Corporate American
feels entitled to tax breaks in they locate in certain localities. The list
goes on and on.At my wife's school, we have parents who feel
their kids are entitled to not just a free education, but that they should not
only make the schools sports teams, but are entitled to certain playing time on
the field. Young graduates from college feel entitled to jobs for which they
have no experience... just book learning.We have an entitlement
issue... but its not around social security. We have a generation that feels
entitled, without a willingness to pay then bill.
The word should be; owed. when you pay for ssi till you reach the age required.
You deserve what you had payed for, owed.
Samuelson? Ugh!! The Washington Post? Likewise. Wonderful how so many
so-called "liberals" are so illiberal and so unjust. Likewise some
alleged conservatives are seeking to default on the national debt for social
security which has been paid for by individual creditors - the retired.Social Security is an actual entitlement. Those who paid into it ARE entitled
to it no matter how ugly politicians seek to lump it in with welfare programs
for which recipients have often not paid.I look forward to the time
when the churl is no longer called 'liberal' and men will cease to
deny the poor of their right. Thieves sit in their fine suits in Congress and
pretend to be benefactors, while they prey on the poor for their gold plated
'benefits' and salaries. Those benefits are the debts they owe to the
taxpayers. It is such 'benefits' as these that should cease inasmuch
that they have not been earned. They should also stop sending people into
foreign wars while they sit securely in DC.
I don't understand how a system I have paid into my whole life is an
entitlement. If I had a choice I would absolutely skip paying social security
and invest that money on my own, but since I have been forced to pay into it how
is expecting something in return an entitlement?The problem is
everyone thinks it's someone else that is the freeloader. I know a woman
who's daughter is on medicaid, she is constantly talking about how all the
freeloaders are mooching off the system. Of course she has never considered that
her own daughter falls under that category. To her, her daughter's
situation is different, she's trying and just hit a rough spot....... yeah
just like most of the other people who are receiving government assistance. Sure
there are some lifelong moochers, but unlike Mitt Romney, I refuse to believe
that they are 47% of this country. Anyone who thinks that doesn't deserve
to be in the white house.
Re: "Social Security is an actual entitlement. Those who paid into it ARE
entitled . . . ."Thanks for bringing the problem into clearer
focus.Rhetorical liberal sophistry notwithstanding, NO person is
"entitled" to take money from another person.Today's
social security recipients paid money into a plan, to be sure. But that money,
along with that plan, are long gone. Stolen by reckless, feckless liberal
politicians, used to buy off voters in desperate attempts to be re-elected.Money being paid out today was "harvested" yesterday, or worse
yet, tomorrow. From someone else. Typically, from the earnings of a young
family, often with earning below those of the social security recipient.Those are the cold, hard facts. And they need to be truthfully
addressed.Any social security recipient that has other investment
earnings or pension proceeds exceeding those of these hard-hit young families
should burn with shame for stealing food from babies' mouths.Social security is welfare. Nothing more nor less. It should be acknowledged
and administered as such, to benefit only the neediest among us.
"entitlement" is just one of the many words that now have hyper
inflammatory connotation attached to them; others include socialism, liberal,
obamacare, leftist, and the list grows. It's a cheap tactic, but
that's where we are today.
This editorial is pretty funny. Samuelson starts out saying we should stop using
the term "entitlement," then he goes on and on using the term throughout
his editorial. Practice what you preach, Bob.
Just who owns America anyhow? And what is America supposed be?The
founding documents seem to me to be saying that America is a singular entity
made up of people. And ownership is acquired by just being born here or in many
cases, just coming to live here legally or even illegally. Does a person
actually have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness just by being
born? Or is America just a business operation where people are like
cattle to be fed, nurtured and eventually slaughtered by their keepers? Do the
rights of life, liberty and pursuit have to be earned according to the whims of
men? Could our system be tweaked a little to allow all people to
earn the rights that were alluded to in the founding documents? Perhaps we need
to explore the other ways a person might earn his keep than just physical labor.
@pro...cal"...Social security is welfare. Nothing more nor less.
It should be acknowledged and administered as such, to benefit only the neediest
among us...".So...Romney voters on Social Security (aka WELFARE)
were in fact part of the 47%.Furthermore...Romney voters who are
a..."...social security recipient that has other investment
earnings or pension proceeds exceeding those of these hard-hit young families
should burn with shame for stealing food from babies' mouths...".Somehow...I don't see Romney voters buying any of this...
I'm OK if we drop the word "entitlement" if it makes some people
uncomfortable.It's mainly used to point out that things we used
to take care of ourselves that became critical government necessities we DEPEND
on once Government decides we can't do it right and they need to do it for
us.We used to take care of our parents when they got old (now the
government does it for us). We used to let them live with us when they
couldn't take care of themselves (now we expect the government to do it).
We used to take care of our neighbors when they had a financial setback (now the
government does it). We used to pay our own bills when we went to the doctor.
We used to provide food for our families (even in tough times) now it's the
government's job. We used to pay our own tuition (now we expect the
Government to do it).These so called "Entitlements", or
using the word "Entitlement", is done to point out that they are things
we COULD do for ourselves... but we EXPECT the government to do for us.
2 Bits is wrong. Before the progressive movement, we DIDN'T used to take
care of our parents when they got old. We put them in filthy county homes to
die. We DIDN'T help the sick--we let them go bankrupt and die. We
DIDN'T take care of our mentally ill. We stuck them in torture chambers
called asylums. We DIDN'T take care of the education of our children...
only since 1960 have most Americans gotten a high school diploma. The mark of a
civilized nation is how it cares for its elderly, sick, and young -- the most
vulnerable. As far as conservatives are concerned, "Let 'em die.
It's not my problem."
"The budget problem is to match Americans' appetite for government
benefits with a willingness to be taxed."So true! Unfortunately
the only recent change in our tax code came from a president who represented a
large segment of democrats who said my appetite is more government benefits for
me (the poor to middle-class) and demanding more willingness to be taxed from
others (the rich). Interesting that 54% of households receive benefits from one
or more "entitlement" programs, and over 50% of households pay no
federal income tax. Why are the people receiving not pitching in? I
wouldn't suggest a flat tax-rate - our economy would take too long to
adjust salaries and it would cause substantial suffering. However, why
don't we expect every working American to contribute something to the pool?
I am not rich, but I make a reasonable living. I budget carefully so I can have
what I need and the things I want most. I have enough to pay some taxes. Yet, in
the past 3 years I have received well over $10,000 more in refunds than I paid
in. The government is paying me? Does anybody wonder why we're drowning in
Re: "Somehow...I don't see Romney voters buying any of this..."Yeah, me neither. But it's a crying shame.Social
security benefits were fraudulently sold to America as an investment of
one's own money, that would be paid back, with interest, in later years.Roosevelt NEVER intended it that way, and almost immediately began to
raid the "trust" fund to buy votes. Of course, truth is, there was never
an actual trust.EVERY generation of Americans since then has been
complicit in perpetrating and perpetuating the fraud, but it's WAY past
time we owned up to it and fixed it.Romney liberals may, indeed,
have to step aside, if they can't get aboard. But social security [and its
associated side frauds, including Obamacare] are the number-one threat to
long-term American solvency.A saying [perhaps incorrectly]
attributed to Ben Franklin sums it up: "When the people find that they can
vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."People found out, but, if we've got any sense, we'll quit doing it.
"These so called "Entitlements", or using the word
"Entitlement", is done to point out that they are things we COULD do for
ourselves... but we EXPECT the government to do for us."And here
in lies the difference. There are those out there that somehow believe that
the position they have in life is of their own making, that credit is all to
themselves. As Christians, we should no better. And we should also no better
what the stewardship that comes with blessings.The government is the
people acting on behalf the people.... not just individuals. It is to do things
that at an individual level, we could not do. To presume that a poor person who
spends their lives working the fields, or in some deep hole extracting coal and
minimal wages, and wasn't able to save... it is their fault they don't
have a war chest saved at the end of life, what a damning attitude.. When we do it to the least of these.... or something along those lines. If
your mantra is about me, my or mine..... you have lost the vision of why we are
here, and what we profess to believe.
"Stolen by reckless, feckless liberal politicians, used to buy off voters in
desperate attempts to be re-elected."Yup. Those R and D
politicians who could pay for things they wanted to give away without raising a
dime in taxes.Those are the ones.
Re: "Yup. Those R and D politicians who could pay for things they wanted to
give away without raising a dime in taxes."Hear, hear!Best course of action? Don't let politicians buy votes by giving away tax
money.Next best? Make them personally and publicly fess-up every
time they do, and pay for all their self-interested, vote-buying bribes strictly
out of current revenues.America is beginning to wake up and
carefully examine the liberal lie that free lunches exist, and can be doled out
to them without consequence by dishonest, free-spending liberal politicians --
of both political parties.
UtahBlueDevilRe: "As Christians, we should no better. And we
should also no better what the stewardship that comes with blessings"...I didn't say we have no christian duty to help our neighbors and
family. If you can find anywhere I said that... please post it. Otherwise
it's a strawman.---I think quite to the contrary I
pointed out that we SHOULD take care of our neighbors, family, the poor, etc,
(as we did in the olden days). But that's what charitable contributions,
Fast Offerings, contributing to scholarship funds, giving directly to the poor,
or contributing to churches and other charitable organizations involved in
helping the poor... are for.Are you saying our taxes are charitable
contributions? That we should see those as our christian duty to our
neighbors?I don't think so. Those are my contributions to
Caesar (meaning the government). Not the limit of my obligation to my
neighbors and the poor in my neighborhood, or my elderly parents.It's precisely your attitude that brings the stereotype of liberals
thinking they don't need to give to charity or take care of their
neighbors... because they already paid their taxes.
Irony,Speak for yourself, not for me.My parents didn't
leave their parents in a county home to die. I remember them coming to live
with us. I remember my wife's parents taking care of their parents
(building them a home nearby, paying their utilities, being in their home every
day, etc). So no.. not everybody did what you did. Some took care of their
parents. And their neighbors, and the poor.---I agree
The mark of a civilized nation is how it cares for its elderly, sick, and young.
But I feel it's MY job to do it (not the government's). Just saying
"I don't have to do it... the government will do it", isn't
enough. If it is for you..fine, but don't foist YOUR attitudes on me.---And as for your tired old stereotype that "As far as
conservatives are concerned, "Let 'em die".... we don't really
believe that. We believe it's OUR responsibility to take care of them
(not the Governments).---Last comment, so if you put
more words I didn't say into my mouth I won't be able to reply. have
2 bits - what we say, and what we do... matters. It says what we believe, or
at least profess to believe. Its just that simple.
It is really hard for me to understand people who believe that the money they
pay for government services buys them nothing. It is as if they can’t
taste it, see it, hear it or feel it, then it has no value. The
most important thing in our lives is survival and the most important agent for
survival is protection from things and people that harm us. If the protection
can occur before we are harmed we are well served. If you want to
help the poor, do you wait until they become poor to do anything? That’s
what private charities do. Would it be better if you could do something to keep
the poor from being poor, and would you do it? Many of the
government programs referred to as entitlements are attempts to protect and
avoid the problem ahead of the problem rather that after the damage is done.
"Best course of action? Don't let politicians buy votes by giving away
tax money."Second best? Dont let unions and corporations buy
politicians by giving them money.
Irony Guy,Part of the problem is your assumption that I'm just
talking about what we did before the Progressive Movement. I'm not.
I'm talking about what we've done going all the way back.For generations and generations we have taken care of our elderly parents (not
expecting the government to do it).I think the slacking off came
before the Progressive Movement. Maybe the Progressive Movement was in
reaction to this slacking that happened.
I agree with Samuelson, put everything on the table. We need a major overhaul
of taxation, spending, and budgets. Of course, under this administration, we
have yet to see a budget that has passed either the Senate or the House. And
the Senate has never even presented a budget until this year, but Reid refused
to go to conference over the differences between the Senate budget and the
House's.It's a circus in DC and the biggest clowns are
running the show.
Congressional Republicans insisting on "Entitilement Reform" is like
addicts ruling on doing away with drugs. When Congress gives up its
entitlements, I will consider some kind of reform. They get their salary for
life and have the best health care the taxpayers can buy. They also have limo
service, huge paid staff members, free franking privilege (postage), and
subsidized everything. We pay their salaries and all the other
"entitlements". We should be able to vote them a cut in pay, have them
lock onto the ACA, and get a job when they leave. Pay them while they are
there, but no congressional "golden parachute". Maybe then we'll
talk about reform.
The word entitlement has always sounded to me like something given to someone
for nothing in return. However, if a student going to college on someone elses
money now were to return it later by paying for a new student, then that is not
so much an entiitlement as it was a "pay it back". All of our
government services are paid for by all the tax payers. I suppose the only real
entitled people in this country are ones who never pay any taxes and get a lot
of government services. The real argument in America is not over
"entitlements" but over what programs to fund, and how much to spend on
them. Maybe cynical, but I believe that there is not a possible program (other
than military) that a Democrat/liberal would not agree to fund with tax dollars.
Republicans on the other hand do, (some anyway) think that not every program
needs to be funded by government.
It is nice to help people in need. It is NOT nice make other people help people
in need.Decades ago I learned that social security is a scam where
they take money from workers and they give to well to-do retirees who receive
back 50 to 100x more from social securit than they paid into it. I recognized
that if I have additional income in my retirement besides social security and if
I still received social security I would be taking food from the mouths of
children.If I could see that, then why is that so many other people
my age are thinking, "I paid into it, I am entitled." I pay taxes, but
that does not make me entitled to food stamps. I pay taxes that pay for food
stamps so that people don't starve. Not having poor children starving is
the benefit I receive.
re: recipients are entitled to social security because they have paid into it.
i agree they are entitled to recoup their contributions plus a reasonable
increase for lost interest. in st. george there are many who will receive
payments for 20 or 30 years and will receive benefits many times their
contributions plus interest. what is their entitlement ?
Republicans focus on what they call entitlements as being the problem in our
country! What a bunch of hogwash. They act like they are innocent when it comes
to our debt! How absurd! Do republicans spend less than democrats? NO! This
whole thing is absurd! ON one side you find all the elite of our nation, and
they have 90% of everything and on the other side is the rest of us! Now,
according to the good old Republican party, the people causing all of our
nations financial problems are among those who have the least! Yeah, isn't
that something! This country is full of succers!