Hello:

(1) Entitlements: We PAID for 'em, that's why we're ENTITLED to them...

(2) Entitlements: We're arrogant and spoiled believing we're ENTITLED to live off somebody else.

Which is it?

excon

Its #2. BECAUSE most of the recipients that cry the loudest... are those that paid nothing or little towards their cost. And the mindset of a growing percentage of people that feel they are entitled to stuff OTHER people are expected to pay for, as long as its not them.

Hello again, smoothy:

I'm a believer in the notion that a deal is a deal. When the government TOOK money out of my paycheck, they TOLD me that in exchange for my money NOW, I would receive a monthly stipend for the rest of my life when I retire.

I did my end. Why shouldn't I hold them to theirs? Aren't I ENTITLED to get what I paid for?

excon

Is this because of all the warnings about SS running out of money?
I always wonder about 2 widely different stories I hear.
One is that SS is running out of money.
The other is that SS on paper has tons of money, but has a drawer full of IOUs from other gov't agencies who have been borrowing for decades. How the heck is that allowed, and who allowed it?

I always wonder about 2 widely different stories I hear.
One is that SS is running out of money.Hello j:

It IS running out of money, but NOT in the short term. Medicare and Medicaid are the programs that are exploding.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

I'm a believer in the notion that a deal is a deal. When the government TOOK money out of my paycheck, they TOLD me that in exchange for my money NOW, I would receive a monthly stipend for the rest of my life when I retire.

I did my end. Why shouldn't I hold them to theirs? Aren't I ENTITLED to get what I paid for?

excon

And THAT is because the liberals have given OUR SSI money to illegals and Immigrants that never contributed... to fat lazy people that won't lose weight and get a job... that never contributed much if anything to SSI. To pay for kids of deadbeats that never contributed to SSI.


However SSI is hardly the only entitlement out there... and its mostly those that I was referring to. You didn't specify SSI alone by name in your thread.

And as far as SSI is concerned... I will agree... we paid for it our entire working lives... as much as 14% of our paycheck... and that's 14% we didn't have to put towards our own retirement savings. And that's NOT an insignificant amount. My gripe is that we that paid for it won't get it because they have been giving all the money to those who have never earned it or contributed much to it.

I am concernd dabout that... but I am livid about the other handouts the government gives to the 45% of the population that pay no federal taxes already... yet leach off the 55% who do pay by sucking the public teet dry leaving nothing for our own when we need it.

And that's the root of the problemn with entitlements... they always end up going to people that don't deserve them in exchange for a promise of a vote. Thus the root of the classic Liberal policy of "Spreading the wealth" by taking from and punishing the productive members of society to reward the unproductive members for their poor choices.

Medicare = entitlement insurance you paid into
Medicaid = freebie
Right?
Of course some people will collect a lot more than they put in, either from SSD or retirement. Why do we all have to keep living longer and longer anyway? I sure don't like this idea of being almost dead for the last 10 years of my life, or even busting my butt to live longer. The next generation is here for a reason: to replace us.
I remember my grandparents feeling guilty at receiving SS retirement exactly when it started and they never paid a dime.
And what about those IOUs? Is that story true, and with everyone broke, how will they pay SS back?

However SSI is hardly the only entitlement out there....and its mostly those that I was reffering to. You didn't specify SSI alone by name in your thread.Hello again, smoothy:

I didn't think I needed to. All government giveaways are NOT entitlements. Entitlements are SSI and Medicare. We PAY for those services.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

I didn't think I needed to. All government giveaways are NOT entitlements. Entitlements are SSI and Medicare. We PAY for those services.

exconTell that to the people that think they are entitled to all the bribes they get for votes... handouts, whatever you want to call them... giving someone something they didn't earn or pay for in exchange for a favor is a bribe.

If the only two entitlements that existed were Medicare and SSI and nobodies going to argue that the people that actually paid into them their entire life aren't entitled to them (only the leeches that didn't), except for certain UBER liberals that think anyone over 250K a year aren't... we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

If the only two entitlements that existed were Medicare and SSI and nobodies going to argue that the people that actually paid into them their entire life aren't entitled to them Hello again, smoothy:

Nobody?? NOBODY?? Sorry, dude. There's a few, and they're in YOUR wing. But, I'm glad to hear you're not one of 'em. So, what WOULD you cut that would make a difference?

Me? I'd cut some defense stuff. In fact, SOME defense spending is considered an ENTITLEMENT by some. John Boehner and Eric Cantor want to continue to build the F-35 joint strike fighter, even though the military says they DON'T WANT IT (http://www.nolanchart.com/article8363.html).

So why is Boehner forcing them to take it anyway? It could have something to do with the fact that most of the spare engines are slated to be built just outside of John Boehner's district in Ohio! And Rolls Royce, who gets another huge piece of making this unwanted expensive engine, just built a giant factory in Cantor's district in Virginia.

That looks to ME, like they think THEY'RE entitled. No?

excon

Entitlements definition #3 ponzi schemes concocted by the government to hook the populace into dependency on the nanny state.

You paid into the scam and the government should honor their commitment. The fact that it's been restructured a number of times tells you the government will not honor it as envisioned.

I would not make any change that would screw the people who have already paid into the system . But I would grandfather Social Security out of existence into a plan where new workers are given choices.

They should also offer a buy out option. I'm more than willing to give up a claim to dependency on the government in exchange for money I've already paid into the system(I'll wave a fair interest rate on my contribution... just give me the principle back and let me decide how to invest it).. and the promise that they won't seize my private funded pension ,IRA, 401k's etc. and place me into a mandatory annunity like they are contemplating .

Medicare = entitlement insurance you paid into
Medicaid = freebie
Right?
Of course some people will collect a lot more than they put in, either from SSD or retirement. Why do we all have to keep living longer and longer anyway? I sure don't like this idea of being almost dead for the last 10 years of my life, or even busting my butt to live longer. The next generation is here for a reason: to replace us.
I remember my grandparents feeling guilty at receiving SS retirement exactly when it started and they never paid a dime.
And what about those IOUs? Is that story true, and with everyone broke, how will they pay SS back?

Correct... Medicaid is a safetynet program unrelated to the notion of 'entitlement' . It is for the neediest in the country .

Medicare as an entitlement is as much a fraud as SS ,and a template to the failures of single payer ,mandated ,government provided heath care.

A blast from the past from ET:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/biggest-ponzi-scheme-ever-293241.html

Hello again, smoothy:

Nobody??? NOBODY??? Sorry, dude. There's a few, and they're in YOUR wing. But, I'm glad to hear you're not one of 'em. So, what WOULD you cut that would make a difference?

Me? I'd cut some defense stuff. In fact, SOME defense spending is considered an ENTITLEMENT by some. John Boehner and Eric Cantor want to continue to build the F-35 joint strike fighter, even though the military says they DON'T WANT IT (http://www.nolanchart.com/article8363.html).

So why is Boehner forcing them to take it anyway? It could have something to do with the fact that most of the spare engines are slated to be built just outside of John Boehner's district in Ohio! And Rolls Royce, who gets another huge piece of making this unwanted expensive engine, just built a giant factory in Cantor's district in Virginia.

That looks to ME, like they think THEY'RE entitled. No?

excon

I wouldn't cut anything in the Defence area... I'd cut ANY support universally for anyone in this country illegally. And I mean everything.

I'd cut 100% of the political paybacks Obama made since he took office... and thus far it has accounted for nearly 4 Trillion dollars to date... and will be far more in the coming years if they aren't eliminated NOW.

How about the HUGE numbers of Federal workers that didn't exist before Obama took office... none of them are productive, they all suck the budget dry.

Funny how the party that was so worried about big brother not so many years ago... has in fact BECOME big brother (on steroids). An Obsessed, controlling, paranoid, vindictive, thieving, extorting... BIG BROTHER.

Funny how there wasn't any mention of all the Democrats pork projects... and there are monumental ones. Many in fact.

F35 is a pig . It would lose a dog fight with the new Chinese stealth fighter . Better to spend the money on the F22 Raptor . If your looking for a model on budget cutting you could do much worse than using the military BRAC as a model.Where the rest of the government pays lip service to budget cutting the military has done the hard work for years.

Yes nobody is addressing entitlements even though ,as Chuck Todd observed yesterday, Entitlement reform was a key part of the bipartisan Commission recommendations.

What people forget is that this round is still dealing with a budget the last Congress should've passed before the lame duck session. They are only debating a budget that will roughly cover 3/4 of a year if immediately passed.
I believe entitlements will play a greater role in the next budget battle .

Referring to entitlement programs, neither, it just means you have a legal right to whatever financial benefit, good or service distributed by the government. And as tom showed, they have no intention of honoring their commitment - at least as far as giving back what they've taken from us goes. They will however, continue to give someone else what they've taken from me which will lead to more people believing that definition no. 2 is correct.

F35 is a pig . It would lose a dog fight with the new Chinese stealth fighter . Better to spend the money on the F22 Raptor .Hello again, tom:

Then you'd agree that John Boehner thinks building this dog IS an entitlement for the people in HIS district, even though I'M paying for it... Wouldn't the hated bullet trains, be a better investment?

excon

It's not an either or. Both are bad ideas .But Boeing would benefit greatly under my plan

It's not an either or. Both are bad ideas .But Boeing would benefit greatly under my planHello again, tom:

I don't work for Boeing either. But, the PLAN I have in mind, is to build war materials that help us WIN wars - not to keep people employed.

That's just me.

excon

Me too. That is why after a comparative study I have been in favor of building a fleet of Raptors instead of the F-35 Joint Strike force figher.

US ground troops have not been a target from the sky by enemy air forces since Korea and I don't want to see that again. That is also one of the reasons I favor our continued exploration and colonization of space.

If you want to talk pork... don't forget all of the Democrats pork rather than single out one particular one...

They are ALL laid bare in this PDF of the 2010 Pig Book... it shows ALL of the pork projects... and doesn't leave any out. http://www.cagw.org/assets/pig-book-files/2010/2010-pig-book-summary.pdf

And you can go here for previous years back to 1991... as well as a searchible database.
http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/

Princess Nancy Pelosi had $75,384,500 In pork just in 2010.

Prince Harry Reid had $223,496,675 In pork for 2010 ALONE.

Democrats for the year 2010 had a total of $5,048,602,943 in pork. Right , over $5 BILLION dollars in pork projects.

Hello again, smoothy:

We KNOW they like to spend - ALL of 'em. That's not the point. The question NOW is the newly elected Republican controlled House of Representatives, lead by Speaker John Boehner, who wants to have an adult conversation about spending. He just doesn't want THIS adult conversation.

You aren't saying, are you, that because we spent like crazy in the past, it's OK for Boehner to keep doing it??

excon

Hello:

(1) Entitlements: We PAID for 'em, that's why we're ENTITLED to them...

(2) Entitlements: We're arrogant and spoiled believing we're ENTITLED to live off somebody else.

Which is it?

excon

Ex the first case exists for those who have contributed, the second exists for those who benefit without contributing.

Very black and white but actually it isn't, it is part of a social compact between the "government" and the people or between and "insurance company" and the people, or between an employer and the employees.

When you look at it that way, the first statement is true and the second is propaganda usually from right leaning political hacks

Hello again, smoothy:

We KNOW they like to spend - ALL of 'em. That's not the point. The question NOW is the newly elected Republican controlled House of Representatives, lead by Speaker John Boehner, who wants to have an adult conversation about spending. He just doesn't want THIS adult conversation.

You aren't saying, are you, that because we spent like crazy in the past, it's ok for Boehner to keep doing it???

excon

That's Nothing compared to what the top Democrats have been doing.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones after all.

It can't be part of the social compact. That would mean both sides honor the terms ;and that is not the case. The tax is imposed... the terms have been altered regarding the guaranteed benefits and the taxpayer obligation to cover the red ink . The money has been cravenly added to the general revenue. The demographics ensure insolvency.

It is simply a big government program that can be altered at the whim of legislators. It was violated immediately upon passage when in a Supreme Court Challenge ,Roosevelt admitted that what had been called an insurance premium was in fact a tax.
Since the Congress has violated the terms of the so called compact so often ,the people are also within their rights to alter and abolish the scheme.

Thats Nothing compared to what the top Democrats have been doing.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones after all.Hello again, smoothy:

Couple things... So, you apparently DO support the wasteful spending of John Boehner, and when you're called on it, you go all stone throwy on me... Well, smootho, my friend, that ain't the way it works around here. I'm a stone thrower. Get over it.

excon

It can't be part of the social compact. That would mean both sides honor the terms ;and that is not the case. The tax is imposed ...the terms have been altered regarding the guaranteed benefits and the taxpayer obligation to cover the red ink . The money has been cravenly added to the general revenue. The demographics ensure insolvency.

It is simply a big government program that can be altered at the whim of legislators. It was violated immediately upon passage when in a Supreme Court Challenge ,Roosevelt admitted that what had been called an insurance premium was in fact a tax.
Since the Congress has violated the terms of the so called compact so often ,the people are also within their rights to alter and abolish the scheme.

Ah Tom you can't have it both ways what you describe as the "whim of the legislators" is in fact democracy in action. Your forefathers, knowing the ways of men, limited the whim of the legislators however your supreme court has overturned their wishes with liberal intrepretations of your constitution. How can you say the people have any power to alter anything? The only power they have is to vote out the legislators but I think your nation is the same as mine, no social security measure is ever repealed, just fiddled with for political advantage.

As I understand it weepy John introduced the funding for the engine knowing it was going to get voted down.He did it to satisfy a demand of his local constituency. There will be negative economic impacts in his district from closing down the program Still he did not really press the case .

Aren't you encouraged that the majority went against the majority leader on a vote to fund a wasteful project ?
I hear Pelosi had a presser after the vote complaining that the Republicans want to send our fighter pilots in harms way with only one engine.

Ah Tom you can't have it both ways what you decribe as the "whim of the legislators" is in fact democracy in action. Your forefathers, knowing the ways of men, limited the whim of the legislators however your supreme court has overturned their wishes with liberal intrepretations of your constitution. How can you say the people have any power to alter anything? the only power they have is to vote out the legislators but I think your nation is the same as mine, no social security measure is ever repealed, just fiddled with for political advantage.

Correct ,the people once forced to fund it kind of think the government ought to live up to their end of the deal. That's how they hook people ;filling them up with lies of "entitlements" and "guarantees" .

If Obamacare ever becomes established it will be the same pile of manure.

Hello again, smoothy:

Couple things... So, you apparently DO support the wasteful spending of John Boehner, and when you're called on it, you go all stone throwy on me.... Well, smootho, my friend, that ain't the way it works around here. I'm a stone thrower. Get over it.

exconDidn't hear you complaining about Pelosi and Reids raiding of the National coffers the last 4 years they held a majority in both houses...

Incidentally while on the Democrats watch... per my previous link for JUST 2010... by people that didn't even have the balls to put their name on the requests... probibly Democrats. Because they would have raised hell if it was Republicans.

In the 2010 Congressional Pig Book, CAGW uncovered 81 anonymous earmarks worth $6.5 billion. In direct contravention of the House and Senate rules, these earmarks had no identifiable requester. You may view these anonymous earmarks by using an asterisk as a search term under either the House or the Senate search fields.

All I know is the president's budget is laughable, and GOP talk of cutting spending has led to the usual BS from the left - Republicans hate women, children, minorities, gays, foreigners, blacks, browns, Muslims, teachers, etc. etc.

Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago the left was stepping back from the overheated rhetoric that allegedly led to the Tucson tragedy?

Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago the left was stepping back from the overheated rhetoric that allegedly led to the Tuscon tragedy?Hello again, steve:

Yeah... It was. Wasn't it only a few weeks ago when the Republicans were talking about jobs, jobs, jobs?? Well, instead of focusing on jobs, they decided, after having given zillions in tax cuts to the richest of Americans, to solve the country's debt crisis on the backs of the poor, and it pissed the left off. I don't know what's so surprising about that. You don't think we're just going to say PLEASE don't cut off heating oil subsidy's for the poor in the middle of winter, do you??

Well, it AIN'T going to happen - not on this board, and not in this nation.

excon

If numbnutz in the Whitehouse wasn't such an idiot and let the damn oil companies get the oil we have here out of the ground... the oil prices wouldn't be so high and NOBODY would even need a heating oil subsidy.

Obamas policies are driving UP the price of oil... and obviously like in everything else... he wants to subsidize his voter base for the stuff the rest of us are being forced to pay not only higher prices for... but to pay AGAIN to subsidize the people that aren't even paying federal taxes to begin with.

You don't think we're just gonna say PLEASE don't cut off heating oil subsidy's for the poor in the middle of winter, do you????

Um, the uproar I'm referring to is over the possibility of cutting funding for Planned Parenthood. And you know what, I'm damned tired of supporting an organization that kills babies with my tax dollars, and that certainly doesn't mean I hate women and children. Quite the opposite actually.