What government entitlement programs should be reduced or ended?

1. 71

   rhamsonposted 14 years ago

   With costs escalating and the economy in the tank what areas should the government suspend, reduce or end?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      We can quit paying congress and the President, that would be a start.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I think you know they don't need the salary.  Nobody goes to Washington and doesn't come back a millionaire.  Besides they don't get paid as an entitlement but for the (cough) the work they do.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            It is most definitely an entitlement, just ask them.

            replyreport
         2. 61

            Friendlywordposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            You have that backwards. No gets to washington unless they are already a millionire.

            replyreport
   2. 70

      Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Hey rhamson,
      
      It would be helpful if they could bring more troops home, it would severely cut into the spending, which is out of control.
      
      Also, I've been an avid watcher of the Markets....ever since the collapse of the financial markets happened.
      
      How ever, with that said......MANY companies which were not banks, when the market collapsed, are now banks and reaping up huge profit gains, at the backing of taxpayer's support.
      
      The treasury and fed have not reduced their positions and have still trillions of dollars supporting the financial system....from what seems no apparent reason.
      
      In a Capitalism Marketplace......if your business can not survive...then it is to fail.
      
      Yet, smaller banks are failing by the dozens, while the bigger banks are eating their cake, while most of society continues to struggle to get by day by day.

      replyreport
   3. 68

      ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      All of them.

      replyreport
2. 80

   Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago

   They should cancel paid health insurance for members of Congress I know a few members here don't want their tax dollars going to pay for someone elses health.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I'm sorry, but I see that as being selfish. Which seems to be what America has turned into....a Nation of mostly "SELF" interested people, nevermind the greater good of people.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with you actually, I was being sarcastic

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            No problem.

            replyreport
3. 71

   rhamsonposted 14 years ago

   The statistics from 2003 show the breakdown as follows:
   
   Social Security: 23%
   Medicare: 12%
   Medicaid: 7%
   Other Means-tested entitlements: 6%
   Mandatory payments (pensions, etc.): 6%
   Net interest on debt: 11%
   
   These are taken from the federal budget and reflect what the percentages stack up to the rest.
   
   I don't know what we can trim without throwing people in the street.

   replyreport
4. 70

   Cagsilposted 14 years ago

   I have an idea?
   
   Cut the pay of the Politicians failing to do their job.
   
   These people absorb $1000's from endorsement deals, events(just showing up) and some events where they speak.
   
   They make anywhere between $10K - $35K per deal or event.
   
   If quit paying them, as we do, we can use the money for other things, like healthcare costs, homeless shelters for those who have none and food for pantries, missions.
   
   Possibly be able to setup a Rehab program for homeless and get them back to be productive citizens with some pride.

   replyreport
   1. 55

      C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "Possibly be able to setup a Rehab program for homeless and get them back to be productive citizens with some pride."
      
      Why do you need the government to do this? Can't communities to do this through charity and HOPE and CHANGE?

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Len Cannonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The majority of homeless in America (especially those who are homeless for longer than two years) suffer from mental illness.  For those suffering economic problems, counseling and training are useful but the best way to help deal with the homeless problem is to continue to fund halfway houses, keep public health care options cheap, and don't underfund our psychiatric hospitals.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            These are some quick stats I found with regard to the percentage of mentally ill homeless.  It was 15%.
            
            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 101738.htm

            replyreport
            1. 70

               Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               replyreport
      2. 70

         Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         replyreport
         1. 55

            C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Sounds like we have found some TAX EVADERS!  I didn't ask you to give it to the United Way.  I asked you why can't communities take care of it. See thats the problem, we want some one else to handle it. Local Churches are funding missions to Guatemala while the homeless guy down the street is well homeless. Look inward, then outward.

            replyreport
            1. 68

               ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               The reason they fund trips to Guatemala is because the government "takes care" of people at home.  Without that government support, you'd see more communities taking care of their own.  You'd also see more loafers out of luck because as a pastor friend of mine told me, churches are very particular about who they will help and how they spend their donations.
               
               Collectivism is a short term solution to a long term problem.

               replyreport
               1. 55

                  C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  "You'd also see more loafers out of luck because as a pastor friend of mine told me, churches are very particular about who they will help and how they spend their donations."
                  
                  Absolutely, there are more than a few "want nots" hiding out with the "have nots"
                  
                  "The reason they fund trips to Guatemala is because the government "takes care" of people at home."
                  
                  Thats an excuse that doesn't hold water. We can't complain about socialism explicitly while we support it implicitly.
                  
                  President Obama while I believe misguided in his approach is right. We need "Fundemental Change In America" We need to get back to basics, back to what made us great. We were founded on the idea that when it comes to government, less is more.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     The only problem is that his idea of change is most certainly not your idea of change

                     replyreport
                     1. 55

                        C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Exactly! That is a HUGE problem, I believe.

                        replyreport
                  2. 68

                     ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     You'll get no argument from me.  But charity in this nation is hampered by government supported welfare.  People take an attitude that the government takes their money in taxes and does something about the problem, so they don't have to.  Instead their charity is exported to places like Guatemala.
                     
                     President Obama is a communist through and through.  Being such, he doesn't care about getting us back to basics but expanding the nanny government to "take care of us" from cradle to the grave.  No thanks.  We're Americans and we can do better than that.

                     replyreport
5. 55

   C.J. Wrightposted 14 years ago

   Social Security, you either have to fix it along with Medicare and SSI or dump them.  If you don't this new Health Care Plan is going to finnish the job on America's financial suicide.  We are getting ourselves into a position where we are trying to save gas and drive fast.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The saddest part about social security is the abuses of the system.
      
      Social Security was originally designed to help those who could not or didn't plan for retirement.
      
      It wasn't meant for people to get checks, even though they already make $100,000+ from pensions, or IRAs or 401Ks. The problem here is these same people are drawing checks, which shouldn't be the case.

      replyreport
      1. 55

         C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         There is even more abuse on SSI and Medicaid.  Why do you think you should be able to deny a person Social Security based on financial success. They paid a LOT more in than the average Joe. They typically give away more money in charity than they collect in Social Security.

         replyreport
6. 71

   rhamsonposted 14 years ago

   I don't think it would even put a dent in the national debt.
   
   
            Members       Speaker     Majority
                  of              of the        and
   Year  Congress      House        Minority
                                                    Leaders
   
   2009 $174,000     $223,500    $193,400
   2008 $169,300     $217,400    $188,100
   2007 $165,200     $212,100    $183,500
   2006 $165,200     $212,100    $183,500
   2005 $162,100     $208,100    $180,100
   2004 $158,100     $203,000    $175,700
   2003 $154,700     $198,600    $171,900
   2002 $150,000     $192,600    $166,700
   2001 $145,100     $186,300    $161,200
   2000 $141,300     $181,400    $156,900

   replyreport
   1. 0

      A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      It would help!

      replyreport
7. 70

   Cagsilposted 14 years ago

   If that study was appalling....?
   
   Try this one:
   
   Bill Gates donated $7 BILLION to his and his wife's Cancer Research Foundation, that same year.
   
   Their Cancer Research Foundation didn't best MAKE A WISH?
   
   How is that possible?
   
   Yet, he got the tax deduction he wanted.

   replyreport
8. 71

   rhamsonposted 14 years ago

   With the military budget operating at $515.4 billion with the wars draining another $200 billion you make a good point.
   
   The financial ruin of smaller companies that are failing has not had the same effect on the big banks and business's.  The rich make most of their money now and love getting bottom basement deals on companies and banks that were once their competition.  Let me get it straight, we bought into their products and they made a lot of money, they failed and borrowed a lot of money, and they are going to buy up everything that was a failure and they are going to make a lot of money.  It is good to be King.
   
   I agree with you but with regard to the entitlements there is a lot of controversy that we are giving too much away.  Is this a real problem or do the statistics not support it?

   replyreport
9. 64

   Mishaposted 14 years ago

   All of them

   replyreport
   1. 71

      rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Would you let the government keep the money? They have to do something with it.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah, they need to give it back!

         replyreport
      2. 68

         ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I'm all for repealing the income tax.  Let people keep what they make.  The best way to keep government from meddling is to keep them poor.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Kinda like what they do to us

            replyreport
            1. 68

               ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               It worked until the early 20th century.  It could work again.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  I was agreeing with you

                  replyreport
10. 64

    Mishaposted 14 years ago

    Nah, all the monies should be returned to taxpayers.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       Aya Katzposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Didn't they already spend it all? Isn't that why there's a deficit?

       replyreport
       1. 64

          Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          LOL, whatever is left, if any

          replyreport
11. 92

    habeeposted 14 years ago

    Cut funding for studies like the sex habits of South American treefrogs! Money spent on such would feed, clothe, house, and medicate a lot of folks! I'm all for science and research, but when we have to choose between it and taling care of the necessities of survival, I vote for survival for those who can ill afford it.

    replyreport
12. 67

    lrohnerposted 14 years ago

    I'm sorry, but the VERY FIRST thing I would change is the welfare program. This has been a pet peeve of mine for years. I would make these people prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they couldn't make a living. There are way too many young'uns out there who believe they are entitled to government money and just keep on having kids without ever a thought of getting a job. Hmmm....Octomom ring a bell?

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Friendlywordposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       You completely destroy your own argument be bringing up the most extreme example ever!!! Why would anybody have to suffer because of someone like her. She is way beyond any description of a real person in need. How about cutting off welfare for insurance companies. Did you hear what happened today? A insurance company in New York cancelled the insurance coverage policies for everyone that has Muscular Dystrophy. Yep, Yep. A whole class of disabled people were dropped from coverage. So I kinda have a problem with that welfare program. PUBLIC OPTION RIGHT NOW!!!

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Star Witnessposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Some might say Octomom is an enterprising entrepreneur very much in the capitalist fashion, making the most of what she seems to want to do best.  I hear she has lots of options...reality TV show, the whole L.A. machine.  We should thereby embrace her money making spirit, yeah?
          
          Friendly is absolutely right.  I do not get a political 'philosophy' which on one hand is usually intolerant of abortions, but on the other hand is also intolerant of helping all those lives out there to actually live.
          
          It is our moral and ethical responsibility to care for the most vulnerable in our society.  Period.

          replyreport
          1. 68

             ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Yeah and those people would be idiots.  Octomom took advantage of government programs to fulfill her obviously disturbed wish to have as many kids as she possibly could.  I've dealt with kids who have screwed up parents and this lady is going to mess up her kids good.  There is a difference between an entrepreneur who creates useful goods and services for people and someone who mooches off of the system.
             
             Now I understand why you don't understand the concept of capitalism and free markets.  I mean you don't understand the difference between societal leeches and entrepreneurs.

             replyreport
    2. 71

       rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Abuses of the system are well known and continue because of the craftiness of some of the recipients.  But with welfare consuming only 2% of the federal government it is not a pofitable expenditure of time.

       replyreport
13. 63

    Lisa HWposted 14 years ago

    My approach would be for people (who know what they're doing, and who are capable of recognizing what's being done stupidly now) to identify the ways public schools, divorce courts, and the policies of these programs, themselves, actually cause/create the need for them (in people who would otherwise have never needed them) in the first place - and address the problem from that angle.
    
    If that were done all the programs could be drastically reduced.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       It's well documented how the government sucks the poor into these programs and keeps them there.  Ever read the early Progressives?  They wanted a welfare system so that they could euthanize "useless mouths", which was a code for minorities and the disabled.  Germany, Italy and Russia weren't the only states looking to get rid of their "undesirables".  Look at what welfare has done.  It's created an entire underclass of citizens who do only one thing, cash their check at the start of the month. 
       
       Sure there are those who claw their way off the system, but they're in the minority.  Most people given a free ride will mooch off of it. 
       
       Friendly, if you really want to change things, you'll need to know why costs are rising.  It's been pointed out to you again and again, but you ignore it.  The people of the United States will never accept a public option.  There's no need.

       replyreport
14. 59

    MargaritaBposted 14 years ago

    Whatever health reform bill theu pass they must also be a part of and not be covered under their current plan.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Heh, good luck with that one.

       replyreport
15. 0

    Poppa Bluesposted 14 years ago

    All of them! Instead of destroying our present health care system and building it from scratch, I think it's time we rebuild government from scratch. We need to revert to a government that honors and protects our constitution, a government that gets off of our backs and out of our wallet! We need a government that SERVES the people not one that uses the people as a resource to be tapped while it expands it's power!

    replyreport
    1. 55

       C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       WELL SAID!

       replyreport
16. 0

    Madame Xposted 14 years ago

    "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic."
    
    Ben Franklin

    replyreport