Spokane7
65°
April 13, 2011 in News
Obama wants Medicare changes, tax increases
WASHINGTON — Forcefully rejecting Republican budget-cutting plans, President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed lowering the nation’s future deficits by $4 trillion over a dozen years and vowed he would not allow benefit cuts for the poor and the elderly to pay for tax breaks for the rich.
“That’s not right and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m president,” Obama declared.
While the president recommended trimming health care costs in Medicare and Medicaid, he also called for cuts in defense, an overhaul of the tax system to eliminate many loopholes enjoyed by individuals and corporations, and an end to Bush-era tax cuts for wealthier Americans.
“We have to live within our means, we have to reduce our deficit, and we have to get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt,” Obama said in a combative speech at George Washington University.
As much a policy speech as it was a political address, Obama laid the blame for the rising debt on the spending increases and tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush and the recession that struck in late 2007. “We lost our way,” he said.
Ensuring that the nation’s fiscal troubles will be at the center of the 2012 presidential election, Obama drew sharp contrasts with a Republican plan that cuts about $5.8 trillion in spending over the next decade and which the White House says unfairly singles out middle-class taxpayers, older adults and the poor. He pointedly noted that the GOP plan has already been embraced by some Republican presidential candidates.
Such cuts, he said, “paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic.”
“Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America,” Obama said, as the author of the Republican plan, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, sat in the front row of the university auditorium.
Obama previewed his proposals to congressional leaders Wednesday morning. And even before he delivered his speech, top Republicans were pushing back.
“If we’re going to resolve our differences and do something meaningful, raising taxes will not be part of that,” House Speaker John Boehner declared shortly after his White House meeting.
This new clash comes just a week after the president announced he would seek re-election. For the past two months, Obama has been arguing for protection of his core spending priorities, including education and innovation. His turn to deficit reduction reflects the pressures he faces in a divided Congress and with a public increasingly anxious about the nation’s debt, now exceeding $14 trillion.
“Any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget,” the president said.
To help enforce budget discipline, the president called for resurrecting a spending cap that would be triggered if the nation’s debt did not stabilize and begin to decline by 2014. The cap would not apply to Social Security, low-income programs or Medicare benefits.
The president’s plan, outlined in a seven-page White House fact sheet, draws many of its ideas from the December recommendations of Obama’s bipartisan fiscal commission, which proposed $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. As in the commission’s plan, three quarters of the deficit reduction would come from spending cuts, including lower interest payments as the debt eases. One quarter, or $1 trillion, would come from additional tax revenue.
For the White House, the speech comes as Obama pushes Congress to raise the limit on the national debt, which will permit the government to borrow more and thus meet its financial obligations. The country will reach its debt limit of $14.3 trillion by May 16. The Treasury Department has warned that failure to raise the limit by midsummer would drive up the cost of borrowing and destroy the economic recovery.
In laying out his plan, the president is wading into a potential political thicket. Liberals are loath to making cuts in prized Democratic programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and in Social Security. Moderates worry that his plan could unravel bipartisan deficit-cutting negotiations. And Republicans reject any proposal that includes tax increases.
The proposal calls for cutting $770 billion from non-defense domestic spending by 2023. That figure does not include spending on major benefit programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The plan also would reduce defense spending by $400 billion during the same 12 years.
Obama envisions spending cuts in Medicare and Medicaid of $480 billion through 2023. Those are in addition to the $500 billion in reductions over 10 years from projected increases in Medicare spending contained in the health care law Congress passed and Obama signed last year.
The president’s planned health care reductions include vague proposals to lower Medicaid costs and reduce Medicare prescription drug expenses.
While the White House concedes that Social Security is facing pressure from an aging population, Obama did not specify any changes to the national retirement system other than calling for bipartisan efforts to “strengthen the program.”
Watch for complete coverage in Thursday’s edition of The Spokesman-Review
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Recent stories in News
1992 murder trial begins against sex offender May 30, 2012 1- Supermajority for taxes unconstitutional, judge rules May 30, 2012 13
- Man dies following early Saturday car crash May 30, 2012 13
- Sex trafficking suspects released as probe continues May 29, 2012 7
- Center’s activities provide glimpse into network of advocacy groups May 28, 2012 4
ManleyPointer on April 13 at 1:30 p.m.
I do not believe that fixing our nation’s budget issues comes down to a choice between adopting higher levels of spending and taxation, and forcing old people to starve or die from treatable illnesses. I don’t believe it. We are being treated like idiots, and I resent that.
IHike4Fun on April 13 at 1:33 p.m.
I see he is still blaming Bush. Boy this gets boring.
leekinny on April 13 at 1:36 p.m.
I hope you won’t mind me repeating this here. In visioning what’s to come from the mesmerized reds it seems appropriate.
.
.
People do have, however they vision it, a responsibility for themselves, family, community, country and God, as they see God, but for a variety of reasons both legitimate and illegitimate within ones control and outside of it, these responsibilities may become compromised. The conservative Republican mantra of ‘individual responsibility’ is designed to absolve oneself of any responsibility except for those so conveniently cherry-picked while easily lowering the dignity and humanity of those in need.
.
Political use of the term ‘Individual responsibility’ means everyone else’s responsibility but mine. It’s an ideological principal embraced by modern conservatives that is designed to protect the conscience of the individual or group from social or religious liability. It’s used to absolve one from long held Judeo-Christian principles such as, ‘by the grace of God go I’ and ‘to those who have been given much, much is expected’. It implies that the gifts from God which we all possess in one form or another have been distributed in equal measure with similar qualities. It’s been used as an excuse from responsibility from everything from the homeless addict to the poor and those with mental and physical illnesses, to such extremes as victims of natural disaster. They believe that families and churches should be the sole suppliers of aid to those in need and never the government.
.
We work best when we pitch in as a nation to solve these problems together. That way the areas of our nation of large areas of poverty are able to be helped. The radical conservative way would only mean a lot sicker under nourished people many of whom will end up on the street. I suppose the conservatives would just end up passing laws to outlaw the poor homeless then put them in a jail-type setting so they are no longer visible. If they are not visible they will be able to claim success. Remember the truth doesn’t matter to this current bunch of conservatives. All that matters is creating a perception of success to placate their supporters and those under their thumb.
.
We can do much better as a society in taking care of the most vulnerable among us. It’s a sinful crime the way the conservative Republican right would have the poor, sick and disabled of this nation treated. It’s shameful. The safety net is full of holes and requires better stewardship from our nation’s leaders.
The temptation to give into rationalizing away someone’s humanity is often great but it’s also always wrong; always sinful.
.
Diana on April 13 at 1:39 p.m.
IHike4Fun, do you mean on whose watch the economy crashed under before the election? That Bush?
Someone has to pay back the $8.5 trillion Republicans racked up by not paying for the wars, Medicare Part D and spending like drunken sailors, while cutting taxes and deregulating everything. The interest is astronomical and continues adding to the debt everyday. How much of our debt accruing under Obama is that interest?
Dazzeetrader11 on April 13 at 1:39 p.m.
“forcing old people to starve or die from treatable illnesses”… this is a false choice.
This never happens. Don’t be taken in. He’s setting up another class warfare situation. Rightout of the Alinsky playbook. He thrives on conflict. His training is a “community organizer”..this conflict is how they push their agendas through. His agenda is socialism….as was Alinksy’s….at any cost!
Just stop the spending……things will work out. Don’t need to create enemies to stop spending. Uniter he’s not. And while everyone is fighting..he sneaks through his agenda because nobody’s watching him. They’re fighting each other.
The Tea Party needs to be resurrected to fight taxes which is and was their only goal.
ManleyPointer on April 13 at 1:48 p.m.
Two things that really get under my skin: using a noun as a verb, and people who tell me what I mean.
hawken on April 13 at 1:54 p.m.
WE ARE BROKE!
Increasing taxes will NOT grow small business. It will discourage small business.
Increasing taxes will NOT create jobs. It will result in the loss of even more jobs.
Increasing taxes will NOT grow our economy. It will send us into a double dip, which many say we have already entered.
Increase taxes on the so-called wealthy 100% and we will still be BROKE!
Print more US dollars out of thin air, continue to devalue our dollar and increase inflation even more,,, and we will STILL BE BROKE.
Borrowing more money EVERY day just to pay our interest expense alone, on our current debt, ADDS to our DEBT,,, ADDs to our INTEREST EXPENSE,,, ADDS to our borrowing,,, ADDS to our INTEREST EXPENSE,,,, ADDs to our borrowing!!!
My head is getting dizzy!
Try this at your home and then post here, tell us ALL, here on this blog,,, how you are prospering by borrowing more, spending more, borrowing more.
Liberals, Mr. Obama, WE ARE BROKE!
Cut the spending. Stop the borrowing.
WE ARE BROKE!
woamike on April 13 at 2:00 p.m.
“Someone has to pay back the $8.5 trillion Republicans racked up by not paying for the wars, Medicare Part D and spending like drunken sailors.”
This is a full-blown case of projection.
Mr. O and his party play second fiddle to no one when it comes to spending. Your “Republicans” 8.5 trillion is Bravo Sierra of the highest order. How do you ever expect anyone to take you seriously with that degree of truth twisting?
Yes, the Dem controlled congress under Bush’s “leadership” spent irresponsibly. No doubt about that. Under Mr. O, the spending and irresponsibility went through the roof. Do you deny that? If Mr. O and the dems were unchecked, they would spend even more. I’m glad Tea Party people are putting pressure on the politicians to drastically cut spending. No one else is.
johnclarke on April 13 at 2:06 p.m.
Increasing taxes will NOT grow small business. It will discourage small business.
Increasing taxes will NOT create jobs. It will result in the loss of even more jobs.
Increasing taxes will NOT grow our economy. It will send us into a double dip, which many say we have already entered.
Increase taxes on the so-called wealthy 100% and we will still be BROKE!
You can just substitute the word “decreasing” for “increasing”, and the Professor would be spot on. I have provided evidence of such on many occasions. I challenge anyone to provide evidence to the contrary. This is plain math. The “conservative” agenda is nothing but snake oil and a PROVEN FAILURE.
Dazzeetrader11 on April 13 at 2:11 p.m.
Clarkie…settle down. It’s the Dems and Obama today who’s wanting to raise taxes.not the conservatives. Now you go take that aspirin! Hurry too….I think you’re be testing God’s will if you don’t.
johnclarke on April 13 at 2:17 p.m.
Yeah well God is not a conservative. He (or She) is most likely a progressive. A few of you cold hearted people screaming for cuts to the poor and less fortunate might want to read that Bible from time to time. I didn’t catch anything about not caring for your fellow man in that book.
That is, if you believe in that stuff.
Got any proof Daisy ? Hawken could use the help shoring up his snake oil business.
leekinny on April 13 at 2:20 p.m.
WOW! We’ve heard from the RNC.
The Moral Majority used to say that ethics mattered. There’s nothing moral with what the GOP is doing now. We’re not broke. The fat cat Repubs just want us to believe that so they can wallow in their pig mud puddle and grunt about how the bottom 98% of us are so easy to take advantage of.
woamike on April 13 at 2:22 p.m.
@Leekinny,
You wrote
“The safety net is full of holes and requires better stewardship from our nation’s leaders.”
I’m with you on the second half of that. As far as the “safety net” is concerned, far from being “full of holes”, it’s turned into a hammock for millions. Taking care of the “poor” has evolved into wealth redistribution for millions of people who neither need nor deserve it. Much of “taking care of the poor” is fraud of the highest order and should be stopped. The government has no business taking (by force) the hard-earned property of one citizen and giving it to another individual of sound mind and body.
Please don’t confuse charity or societal obligation with the legalized theft perpetrated by the government and facilitated by well intentioned, but misguided people.
Charlie on April 13 at 2:33 p.m.
Good timing, a campaign speech two days before April 15th, tax day.
Ninch on April 13 at 2:33 p.m.
Obama did not propose any Medicare changes (or Medicaid changes or Social Security changes) but rather keeping the status quo.
Obama proposed tax increases and closing loopholes for the “rich” but NO TAX REFORM. Again, keeping the status quo with a little twist (of the knife for small businesses).
Laughable, saying that his 12-year projection saves $1 Trillion dollars in interest. How? Where? Very pie-in-the-sky dream savings.
eagleproducer on April 13 at 2:37 p.m.
ninch: The “changes” to Medicare and Social Security will arrive in the form of removing the income cap for earners, not employers.
What were the tax rates the last time the budget was in surplus? What was the unemployment rate at that time? Claiming lowering taxes creates jobs and reduces the deficit does not conform with reality.
So tell me, we cut taxes and reduced spending. Now what?
eagleproducer on April 13 at 2:38 p.m.
The only thing “broke” is the 33 LP record known as Hawken.
Dazzeetrader11 on April 13 at 2:42 p.m.
How about looking at the so called “poor” and looking at how they’re classified as “poor” . you might be surprised.
Meanwhile though, let’s not get past the focus of the thread. It’s about MONEY and government control of your money.
Obama wants it. I don’t like his “want”. Unelected him. He’s a socialist. Let’s get a new face in the WH. One thing is clear, his speech today will divide us.not unite anyone. Freeloaders wil love his speech. Most Americans won’t.
Defund Obamacare is a start to prosperity. You fund it and the nation’s economy crashes.
As shown today, Obamacare’s popularity has fallen like a rock to 35%. Go home Barack! Not wanted here.
http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK%20Poll%20032911.pdf
Ninch on April 13 at 2:56 p.m.
Removing the “cap” for Social Security and Medicare is NOT reform. It is plain and simple a tax increase… ergo status quo.
greenlibertarian on April 13 at 2:58 p.m.
“We’re broke and I just saw the welfare queens driving Cadillacs at DSHS on their way to buy cigs and alcohol with their food stamps!”
Same old nonsense.
This plan by Obama is far too weak, but at least acknowledges what every serious proponent of budget reform knows, you gotta cut spending and you gotta raise taxes.
$400B in DoD cuts? Laughably low. As Reagan’s Budget Director Stockman said last week, Defense needs to cut AT LEAST 25%, and needs to happen SOON.
We have to raise taxes to pay for the wars we put on Uncle Sucker’s credit card as well.
BTW, as with ALL politicians, watch what they DO, not what they SAY.
MrNatural on April 13 at 3:02 p.m.
Hmmm?…so we have a choice to raise taxes and close loopholes to generate revenue or doom the poor the disabled and increase a more profound economic burden (medically) than federal taxes would on the elderly.
I have not heard how the conservatives plan to address “the doomed”
I believe as did my parents during WWII that we all have to give more than take to be successful during a crisis…it’s that simple….
liberal_in_right_wing_land on April 13 at 3:11 p.m.
Finally you can start to see the difference of being a democrat and a republican. The republicans bill put forth by Herman Munster….I mean Paul Ryan…..takes its cuts off the backs of the middle class, the poor and the elderly where more than 2/3 of their cuts come from, while cutting taxes for his wealthy campaign donors.
The democrats bill put forth by Obama is asking the rich and large corporations to make much of the sacrifice raising their taxes a few percentage points while keeping most programs that help people who need it the most.
This is your difference between the republicans and the democrats….the GOP wants to help only the rich and the corporations while making everyone else sacrifice. Meanwhile the democrats want to try and help everyone, not just the top 1% of the population.
detroitdude on April 13 at 3:16 p.m.
Well said liberal ^
ManleyPointer on April 13 at 3:22 p.m.
Ok, johnclarke, I read my Bible. Nowhere could I find any admonition directed at the Government to care for the poor, the widows, the orphans, etc. The Bible’s calling to compassion and kindness is an individual one, or at most directed to groups of believers; it is not, and never has been, directed at governments.
I really don’t believe that it is appropriately the role of government to care for us. It is the role of government to protect us and to facilitate our efforts to provide for ourselves. It is OUR responsibility as human beings to care for one another (which is a subject for another string of posts, I’m guessing). I am not in favor of abrogating that responsibility in favor of letting the government take care of us all.
woamike on April 13 at 3:23 p.m.
“This is your difference between the republicans and the democrats….the GOP wants to help only the rich and the corporations while making everyone else sacrifice. Meanwhile the democrats want to try and help everyone, not just the top 1% of the population.”
This is one of the lib’s core, DELUSIONAL beliefs.
It is utter and total nonsense.
These are the dem’s useful idiots, our modern-day O.J. jurrors.
Signed,
An indepentdent conservative, beholden to no politcal party
woamike on April 13 at 3:24 p.m.
ManlyPointer,
Well said.
mikeln on April 13 at 3:27 p.m.
All in all, it’s all crap. We were robbed to finance wars that made certain people weathy beyond what they need. Get what’s left of that money back from the theives, instant budget reduction. Hang these bastards and show the rest of them we, as the american people, will no longer tolorate them. We all know who they are, demand justice! With that said, the republicans are now wanting that which just a couple of weeks ago they were bitch’n about. We don’t need this, we don’t need them, we need a government that provides for the welfare of it’s people, not just the few that can fill some idiots pocket full of gold.
ManleyPointer on April 13 at 3:30 p.m.
“The Democrats want to help everyone.” Please. Keep your “help,” Democrats. I don’t want you to “help” me.
I understand the feel-good urge to “help” everyone, but we cannot afford a feel-good government. We really can’t.
And Republicans, please don’t mess with me either. If I want to smoke a little (or a lot of) weed, or if I want to marry my best boyfriend, who are you to tell me I can’t?
And Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd should go to jail. THAT would help.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on April 13 at 3:30 p.m.
woamike - please name me some examples with real FACTS that the republicans have done in the last 2 years to help anyone besides the richest 1% and giant corporations. In fact I will make it easier and stretch that out to 5-10 years. Please ANY CONSERVATIVE on here name me something, anything, just ONE thing in the last TEN YEARS that the republicans have done to help the middle class the the poor.
SpokaneLiberal on April 13 at 3:42 p.m.
Tough choices, but reasonable approach.
1. Bush Tax cuts for those making over 250K expire. This unfunded expense simply goes back to Clinton era tax rates. This is not unreasonable.
2. Allow people to purchase Medicare at cost. This adds nothing to the debt, but allows people to choose a plan with the lowest overhead in the nation.
3. Eliminate the cap on Social Security and Medicare wages subject to those taxes.
4. Eliminate all tax deductions for corporations and institute a 25% corporate flat tax. This would reduce the current corporate tax rate that Republicans always cite - 35%.
5. End all foreign military interventions.
6. End Corporate personhood that has been legislated from the bench by Judicial Activists.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on April 13 at 3:44 p.m.
Also, most Americans overwhelming favor taxing people with incomes about $250,000. So the people on here bashing tax increases for the rich and saying nobody is for it are again lying to you and neglecting the facts. Apparently Americans DO WANT class warfare with the rich to start paying up.
http://www.jlaforums.com/link.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashington%2F2011-04-12-budget-shutdown-poll.htm
Dazzeetrader11 on April 13 at 3:58 p.m.
Spokane Lib veers to the right……..most are in Ryan’s plan! Good goin!
Welathy people do NOT “pay up” on anything. You lefties should pay US for generating your jobs. Like it when it’s fair play? WE have allowed you to have jobs and maintain your ability to complain via your unions. You should be grateful.
On WIsconsin! lolol
Dazzeetrader11 on April 13 at 4:02 p.m.
Even the so called “poor” know he’s a bum!
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-obama-s-approval-drops-below-50-p
mejdae on April 13 at 4:03 p.m.
I’m not sure why it’s considered completely unreasonable (by people on both sides) to both raise revenue and cut spending. Seems like a decent compromise and one that needs to be done for any budget where debt and deficit both have reached such remarkable levels.
The “family budget” is always brought up as an analogy here. Suppose a family has spent recklessly and is now burdened with incredible debt and has financial obligations that far exceed income. When the family finally decides to really get it’s act together, their first choice should be cutting the budget. HOWEVER, there comes a point at which you cannot cut more. You cannot/should not default on loan obligations. You must feed, clothe, and house the family. Health must be maintained. If you’ve cut and cut and cut and still can’t pay the bills, it’s time for someone to bring in more income. This is the equivalent of raising taxes.
Also, @hawken, as I read it, the proposed tax increases have little to nothing to do with small business owners and are unlikely to prevent their success.
oneanddone on April 13 at 4:08 p.m.
While I’ve been guilty in the past, I’d like to see all future posts limited to 10 lines on the SR website. Anything more is repetitive blah, blah, blah, BS.
crazyivan44 on April 13 at 4:08 p.m.
I’m still waiting to hear someone bring up the issue of a structured health insurance deregulation again…did someone pitch the idea recently and I missed it? I never heard an argument against it in prior years that made any sense to me…seems like if some ground rules could be set to detect and deal with collusion that you could still have a private insurance industry that was more dictated by free market principles than by what are basically monopolies in many respects today.
Dazzeetrader11 on April 13 at 4:19 p.m.
Nice post mejdae. Correct.
Small businesses won’t hire if their taxes are riased furth<–Hawkens point if I read him correctly.
greenlibertarian on April 13 at 4:21 p.m.
Shorter dazed and confused. “We don’t pay taxes. The little people pay taxes.”
Speaking of which:
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/02/04/only-the-little-people-pay-taxes/
detroitdude on April 13 at 4:32 p.m.
“Welathy people do NOT “pay up” on anything. You lefties should pay US for generating your jobs. Like it when it’s fair play? WE have allowed you to have jobs and maintain your ability to complain via your unions. You should be grateful.”
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with this country.
EdubU on April 13 at 4:32 p.m.
Where are the jobs Mr Boehner?? Mr McConnell, Mr Cantor, Mr Ryan, Ms Bachmann??
Dazzeetrader11 on April 13 at 4:34 p.m.
DUDE…lol…now put in the “government” instead of WE.and you’ll get the REAL picture. I’ve been waiting for more insults from you. Guess you’re not biting today. Oh darn!
greenlibertarian on April 13 at 4:36 p.m.
http://tinyurl.com/3tys8ev
Dazzeetrader11 on April 13 at 4:52 p.m.
ALERT ALET!! We pay huge taxes right now. THEY have enough REVENUE…….We want less spending. Are you cerebrally compromised from pot GREENIE????? You post this inane silliness.
We (the US) have more than they need in revenue! It’s the spending we want reduced! NO MORE SPENDING and REDUCE the spending the US is doing now!
That’s going to disturb the increasin volume of “freeloader-entitlement crowd) . Tough! Yo want more, you pay for more! But for now….the government should reduce it’s crazy spending. Obama’s only trying to buy voters anyway. They know it and the gravy train has to be deriaied and then destroyed.,
That’s what the TEA Party wants.,…it’s their only mission! We still can fund the sick and REALLY poor people. We want to and we must! It’s the free lunch folks we won’t pay for anymore.
We’re out of money! SOmebody quicly send a note to Obama….stop the wars as you promised.
ManleyPointer on April 13 at 4:55 p.m.
You know what would help the middle class and the poor? Get rid of easy entitlements. I can see limited government help for people who are truly down and out and struggling, and for those who truly can’t help themselves, but what we have done since the installation of the “great society” programs is create a HUGE group of people who no longer have the ability or the desire to take care of themselves!! They trade their pride and self-respect for a government check. If anyone thinks this portion of the population isn’t an enormous component of the gigantic problem we have in this country with entitlements and associated costs, that person is either naive or ignorant of the way things are.
Do that, return the money not spent to the taxpayers (there’s your help to the middle class), and watch the middle class grow as these dependents transition back into contributing members of society.
Dazzeetrader11 on April 13 at 5:07 p.m.
Good post Manly. It’s a decent and honest solution.
greenlibertarian on April 13 at 5:11 p.m.
Dazzeetrader11 on April 13 at 4:34 p.m.
DUDE…lol…now put in the “government” instead of WE.and you’ll get the REAL picture. I’ve been waiting for more insults from you. Guess you’re not biting today. Oh darn!
Dazed just directly admitted to deliberate troll behavior. I graciously thought see simply suffered from confusion, brainwashing and ignorance, not deliberate troll behavior.
Please don’t feed the trolls!
eagleproducer on April 13 at 5:12 p.m.
manly: Please provide proof of this lazy, entitled class yo speak about. You mean I can just quit working and trade my respect for a check? Sheesh, that sounds a lot like a farm subsidy, where do I sign up?
The idea that the poor and lazy are bleeding us dry is simply not true. Capitalism is not providing enough employment. Simple and plain.
reservedparking on April 13 at 5:24 p.m.
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on April 13 at 5:36 p.m.
Amazing that not one conservative on here has yet to come up with one thing the republicans have done in the last 10 years to help the middle class and the poor.
Instead they continue to attack these people as being freeloaders and lazy…..which I guess by their definition then 99% of this country is lazy and freeloaders.
misjustice on April 13 at 5:38 p.m.
reservedparking wins, with the best post to this thread!
; )
gmorton on April 13 at 5:41 p.m.
leekinny wrote
“Political use of the term ‘Individual responsibility’ means everyone else’s responsibility but mine . . .”
Uh, no, lee. It means exactly what it says – that each person is responsible for his own welfare and the consequences of his own actions, and no one else’s, unless he has freely taken on such external responsibilities by contract. There is no “but mine” exception.
“It’s an ideological principal embraced by modern conservatives that is designed to protect the conscience of the individual or group from social or religious liability. It’s used to absolve one from long held Judeo-Christian principles . . .”
There is no such thing as “social liability,” and “religious liability” is a matter between you and your God or you and your church. It is not within the purview of the State.
“They believe that families and churches should be the sole suppliers of aid to those in need and never the government.”
That’s exactly correct. Enforcing “Judeo-Christian principles” is the province of the church. That’s what the First Amendment means.
BTW, lee, when you quote an external source you should provide a link or at least a credit.
JBlim on April 13 at 5:47 p.m.
Thanks to all you Republicans for sticking up for the poor rich people. Haven’t they suffered enough?
jddavis on April 13 at 5:58 p.m.
liberal….—”Amazing that not one conservative on here has yet to come up with one thing the republicans have done in the last 10 years to help the middle class and the poor”
I went to work, generated income, paid taxes.
selkirks on April 13 at 6:01 p.m.
@reservedparking @Leekinny @greenlibertarian all have excellent points. If you didn’t read their posts, I encourage you to scroll up an read them.
Fundamentally, what we need is a sea change in the way we think about government.
Defense needs to be cut. We’re spending too much abroad and domestically trying in futility to bolster our military power. Newsflash: No one comes close to what we spend. We need to get out of two wars as soon as possible. We have to many issues domestically to also have to deal with a large operation in the Middle East.
Revenue must somehow be increased. I favor closing tax loopholes for corporations and individual. GE should be paying taxes. They paid none last year. I favor raising taxes on individuals making more than $250,000/year and families making more than $350,000/year. These people do not need tax cuts. They are not middle class or lower class. They’re doing fine. Let’s tax them at Clinton’s rates (people understate his success as a president, by the way) and help the middle class.
Changes must be made in Medicare/Medicaid. There’s too much fraud. There’s too much gaming of the system. Let’s take a scalpel (not a hatchet), and, without cutting benefits, cut costs. I like Obama’s plan in this respect.
Green energy investment? Why not. The benefits in job creation and energy independence would far outweigh what we would spend. Let’s give green energies incentive to stay in the United States. we need those jobs. And we don’t need a cap-and-trade system to do so. Let’s cut CO2 with American capitalist investment.
Stop giving tax breaks to oil companies, as well. That could pay for these incentives for green energy and renewables. And then some. At the heart of it, we need jobs. We need reasonable cuts in spending and increases in revenue. This is how I’d do it.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on April 13 at 6:26 p.m.
jddavis - thats sad if thats all you can come up with.
greenlibertarian on April 13 at 6:31 p.m.
but what we have done since the installation of the “great society” programs is create a HUGE group of people who no longer have the ability or the desire to take care of themselves!! They trade their pride and self-respect for a government check.
Were you asleep or just not paying attention when Welfare was dramatically reformed in the 90’s? No time to find out about TANF,Temporary Assistance for Needy Families?
If you are able-bodied, there are no programs that let you get a government check. You might get food stamps.
If you are able-bodied and have dependents (minor children) you can get a govt. check, as long as you also look for work or are taking part in a limited amount of job preparation classes. This is known as “Welfare to Work”.
Generally, there is a 5 year lifetime limit for receiving such TANF benefits.
If you are SEVERELY disabled, you may collect SSDI or SSI depending on the circumstances.
One of the problems with SSDI and SSI are that they are typically binary in decision making, either you are able to work, or totally disabled.
There are many people who are in the middle, somewhat disabled, but could still work. A company I used to work for doing IT ran an experimental program paid for by SS to identify such people and help them to get jobs, sometimes providing supported employment services. They usually got to keep their SSDI medical benefits, as most of the jobs they could get did not come with health care insurance, or it would be too expensive for them to procure it.
While there certainly are scammers and slackers who are getting govt. checks they shouldn’t, here’s the flip side, there are quite a few people who are classified as disabled and can get govt check, but they really can work, and they really WANT to work, and are PROUD to do so. For many, getting back to work was absolute life changing in a very positive way, I’d see them beaming.
Our company provided similar services to folks with developmental disabilities, saving the state and the feds tons of money.
It is simply a myth that all these people are collecting checks who don’t deserve it. Until the Great Recession, Welfare (TANF) caseloads plummeted to about half what they’d been in the 80’s and 90’s.
The Welfare reforms were not perfect by any means, and do vary on a state by state basis. On a case by case basis, many people (and children) did suffer from the reforms. But on balance, reform was a good thing.
Problem Solver on April 13 at 6:38 p.m.
The Defense Budget is close to $700 billion a year! There should be major cuts in that agency. Instead of dropping bombs, how about taking care of the poor and elderly here in America? How about keeping our air and water clean and investing in more clean, alternative energy. We need to plan ahead and be kinder and more gentle with our people and our planet. God is watching.
NO MORE CORPORATE WELFARE! The greedy rich have been freeloading off of this country for way to long. And now they want more??? More tax breaks and more handouts? So, if we just let them have more money they will create more jobs here, right? WRONG! I saw that movie before during the Bush Administration and it did not play out very well. We were losing jobs at the rate of 800,000 a month by the end of 2008.
I guess they just wont be happy until they completely bankrupt the country, outsource all the jobs and put everyone here out of work. Greed and avarice could destroy us. The Roman Empire didn’t last forever. Lets get it together people, 2012 is approaching fast.
crazyivan44 on April 13 at 6:54 p.m.
gmorton, just an fyi leekinny recycled about half of that post, literally copied and pasted verbatim, from something that was left on a different thread weeks ago when we engaged in some conversation. They went on to accuse conservatives of being part of some paranoid conspiracy to specifically target them implying some sort of grudge and I never got a response on what was meant by that.
I basically said the same thing you did and never got a response, maybe you will on this thread! But it sounds like it is not even original content, would love to know where it originally came from. Good post.
jddavis on April 13 at 9:36 p.m.
Sorry liberal….you said “one thing”, I figured that would satisfy your request. As for the whole topic, I guess the point is is that it will never be enough.
ManleyPointer on April 13 at 9:58 p.m.
I guess I’ll just have to be content to disagree with you, greenlibertarian. You seem to have a pretty good theoretical grasp of how the social safety net is supposed to work, but it does not work that way in practice. There are huge numbers of people who totally game the system, working as hard on it as they might work at a real job. I see it every single day. Millions of dollars are wasted each year in this state on people working the system, and my guess is that it’s worse in other areas of the country.
greenlibertarian on April 13 at 11:54 p.m.
There are huge numbers of people who totally game the system, working as hard on it as they might work at a real job. I see it every single day.
How so ( do you see it every day)?
ManleyPointer on April 14 at 6:58 a.m.
My employment brings me into daily contact with this population.
ManleyPointer on April 14 at 7:07 a.m.
And for the Tax-the-Rich crowd, this from today’s Wall Street Journal: “According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn’t cover Mr. Obama’s deficit for this year.”
johnclarke on April 14 at 11:53 a.m.
“Millions of dollars are wasted each year in this state on people working the system, and my guess is that it’s worse in other areas of the country.”
I guess I’d like to see hard proof of that. Although I agree 100% that the system gets gamed, I can’t really just accept that it’s that impactful without some numbers. Standard right wing complaint “Medicare fraud is a huge cost” when actually Medicare and regular health insurance have the same % of fraud.
johnclarke on April 14 at 11:56 a.m.
“And for the Tax-the-Rich crowd, this from today’s Wall Street Journal: “According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn’t cover Mr. Obama’s deficit for this year.”
Well, finally we agree on something. In 2008 the taxes were obviously too low on this tax bracket. Nice to see someone actually using numbers around here. Rich people are not the ONLY revenue source in Obama’s plan btw. Just one.
ManleyPointer on April 14 at 5:11 p.m.
My “proof” is admittedly anecdotal, but it’s based on 15 years of anecdotes. I’m happy to share these stories, but it’s WAY more likely to happen over a beer somewhere than it is in a SR comment.
And I hope that the point I am trying to make isn’t categorized and dismissed as a “standard right-wing complaint,” since I don’t self-identify as right-wing and don’t like to think of myself as a complainer.
I don’t disagree that everyone should pay their “fair share” of the tax burden in this country; my disagreement is usually over how these tax dollars are spent.