It’s the beginning of a new week. Are you waiting for the next entitlement program?

Question

I wonder how deep into this week we're going to get before some Democrat candidate for president comes up either (a) a new entitlement program designed to make people even more dependent on government; or (b) another proposal for increasing taxes on the evil, putrid, menacing, nasty, filthy, crooked rich?

Does anyone want to take a guess?

Answer 1

Hillary has backed off of her $5,000 per child entitlement. I think the people are finally waking up to this pandering from both parties. I think a dem will need to at least paint a picture of fiscal responsibility to get elected. The primary is one thing but when it comes to the general election, there is no way to get elected on empty promises.

Now if only there were a realistic choice that would bring back fiscal responsibility.

If we could pay down the debt, we could have necessary social programs AND tax cuts!

Answer 2

Do you even know the definition of an 'entitlement' program?
We have 2. Social Security and Medicare. They are 'entitlements' because everyone qualifies and they are permanent. And they are by far, the most expensive (again, everyone qualifies, even you). So which entitlement program are you willing to give up?

Aid to the poor, education assistance, medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, are not entitlements. You must qualify with poverty (yeah, like people actually choose poverty). They are not permanent, and in the grand scheme of things, not expensive (100 billion/year for welfare, versus 140 billion/year just to service the red ink racked up by George Bush)

So when any good politician, democrat or republican comes up with a program that actually improves lives and solves problems then I will be all for it. But unless they are giving it to everyone regardless of situation, don't call it an entitlement.

Answer 3

McMansions from HUD. perhaps loose automobiles. The sky's the cut back as long as some persons nonetheless paintings and pay taxes. whats up Slick you already know they already get that, astounding? In Florida while you're on nutrition stamps (EBT card) you get a cellular with an allotment of minutes each month.

Answer 4

A popular myth is “Defense is over half of the Federal budget”, yet few ever cite a source for their data. Even without a source for verification, this myth continues to persist, and it’s popularity among the uber-left continues to grow. But in an article comparing spending in 1956 and 2006 a few facts jump out: In 1956 defense spending was 60%, while entitlements were 22%. In 2006 defense spending shrunk to 20%, while entitlements grew to 60%.

In fiscal 2006, the federal government spent almost $2.7 trillion. Social Security ($544 billion), Medicare ($374 billion) and Medicaid ($181 billion) dominated. There was $199 billion more for payments to the poor, including the earned income-tax credit and food stamps, among others.

Over the last decades, defense spending is down as a part of the whole Federal budget, yet the myth continues. However, it’s easy to get details the article doesn’t provide as you receive an updated spending report every year — just look in your 1040 tax instructions (page 83 for the 2006 tax year, if you don’t have them, go to irs.gov and grab the PDF for form 1040 instructions). Look for the pie chart titled “Outlays for Fiscal Year 2005″ to yield the following fiscal facts regarding spending.

Social security, Medicare, and other retirement 37%
Social programs 20%
Physical, human, and community development 10%
National defense,veterans, and foreign affairs 24%

Social spending is 67%, defense is 24%, and the other 9% is interest on debt and general government. How then does this myth continue? Perhaps because politicians themselves continue to repeat it, and very few in the media or elsewhere challenge its truth. Yet it’s simple to verify the facts, as the data is as readily available as your tax instructions.

It can be argued defense spending is too high or too low, but if we’re going to have that discussion, we should at least get the facts straight. And the fact is defense spending is not near half of the budget — the majority of spending is on social spending and entitlements, not defense.

Answer 5

You can be sure it is more entitlements. There are Democrats in the wealthy, and upper middle class for whom raising taxes can be alientating just at the mention, so, don't mention them, until you get in office. Whatever they "promise" now, be it more entitlements or higher taxes, you can be sure they won't hold themselves responsible if it doesn't pass into law, so my bet is more entitlements.

Answer 6

I too am concerned about the growth of government. Unfortunately both major parties are contributing to this. During Bush's first six years in office he had a Republican Congress and yet the overall size of government still grew. This growth was NOT all been in areas like security and defense either. I have had it with both the Republicans and the Democrats.

Answer 7

Depends on when the polls come out. You can be sure the latest hair-brained scheme will surface after the poll results.

Answer 8

dependent more on government or some profiteering oligopoly ? At least partly funded by the 1%ers with higher taxes on people who are insulated in various ways therough government licensing, corporate welfare, bonuses for outsourcing jobs ect?
I'll take the government entitlements thank you

Answer 9

How about instead of increaseing taxes we cut spending on things we don't need, like pork barrel spending on projects that have no return on investment.

its the classic million dollars to study ketchup bottles or the bridge in alaska to nowhere.

Answer 10

Considering all the simple 'free' pandering ploys have already been turned loose by the supreme left-wing leaders (assuming everyone with a finely honed college-educated liberal brain) tuned in for nanny numpkins...

The next clear choice for pandering is free colon exams.

Sponsored by left-handed Louie and his lollipop for fruits campaign.