Comments about ‘Entitlement spending must change’

There are some pretty easy solutions. As long as you do not means test SS, then raise the cap on income subject to the SS tax. Right now, income over about $110,000 is not subject to the tax. This means that very affluent people receive a disproportionate benefit from Social Security. Raise the income cap, and watch your problems disappear. Means test for those making over $250,000 in post retirement income from any other source, and the savings will be significant. Unfortunately, people will raise the issue, usually for political purposes, and not posit any solutions. They want to sow seeds of discontent in order to gain votes for re-election to public office. Solutions are not in their interest.

The quality of government is not measured in itâs spending, but in the benefit received by itâs citizens.

Commercially minded politicians and businessmen want government to get out of the way and let them have free access to the wealth of the people. They resent the protection given citizens as interference to their commercial freedom. They resent the benefits given citizens because it competes and robs them of the opportunity to provide the benefits at a private profit.

I donât think that I have ever seen or heard of a budget that actually accomplished any thing other than provide arguing points for the people who make or try to follow budgets.

The notion of a budget for government is not feasible. Governments are created and expected to do the things ask of them. The creator/owners of the government are limited only by the capability of their government in the things they may ask.

The notion of a budget, limits even a Constitution in part, are the tools which unscrupulous commercial interests use to defeat the purposes of government. The word entitlements has been given a bad meaning by the commercialists, they ignore the fact that all government benefits to anybody and everybody are entitlements.

Social Security and Medicare must be eliminated; however, those who have paid into those programs must be fully compensated, with interest, for the taxes that they were required to pay.

There is no "means test" before we are required to pay into the program so there can be no means test before we draw from the program.

Everyone of us could have a mulitimillion dollar retirement plan had we invested the same amount of money taken from us by the government for SS and Medicare that was put into the general fund to fund the government.

Each Congressman who voted to use that money for anything except for SS and Medicare shold be prosecuted for fraud. No lawyer or insurance agent, who mixed his clients' money with his own money would escape prosecution. Why should an elected official be exempt. They knew the law. They chose to ignore the law. They spent the money. Put them all on trial. Seize their assets and the assets of their families until everything has been put right.

Out of all the people, Robert Bennett says "entitlement spending must change", and I'm sure now he's not addressing Utahns that have been pining for a Legislature that does generate crazy ideas such as bills to allow people to kill cats or proposals to create a state machine gun. So I'll address his hyperboil completely forgotten again fantasy assumptions that entitlement spending means only for the poor and middleclass. We should tax the rich, and get those taxes out of off short tax safe havens where they pay no takes. It's essentially a corruption tax on citizens who bear the cost of bad behavior police brutality, bogus contracts, bribes, theft and ghost payrolling to name a few and the costs needed to prosecute it. The government's crackdown on insider trading has ensnared one of the most vocal critics of the campaign to root out illegal information swapping on Wall Street and K Street. That's the entitlement spending of the ReaganBushClintonBush-villes economics that started with Reagan, with deregulated for kickbacks for the Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist, in their "Field Of Dreams," (of corn and sugar cane), with more corruption, and "crony capitalism." More outright-scams and con-games.

Ghandi's 7 dangers to human morality:

#1: Wealth without work.
#2: Pleasure without conscience.
#3: Knowledge without character.
#4: Business without ethics.
#5: Science without humanity.
#6: Religion without sacrifice.
#7: Politics without principle.

Current envents repost.

Robert Bennett says "entitlement spending must change", and I'm sure now he's not addressing Utahns that have been pining for a Legislature that does generate crazy ideas such as bills to allow people to kill cats or proposals to create a state machine gun. So I'll address his hyperboil completely forgotten again fantasy assumptions that entitlement spending means only for the poor and middleclass. We should tax the rich, and get those taxes out of off short tax safe havens where they pay no takes. It's essentially a corruption tax on citizens who bear the cost of bad behavior police brutality, bogus contracts, bribes, theft and ghost payrolling to name a few and the costs needed to prosecute it. The government's crackdown on insider trading has ensnared one of the most vocal critics of the campaign to root out illegal information swapping on Wall Street and K Street. That's the entitlement spending of the ReaganBushClintonBush-villes economics that started with Reagan, with deregulated for kickbacks for the Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist, in their "Field Of Dreams," (of corn and sugar cane), with more corruption, and "crony capitalism." More outright-scams and con-games.


My views.

Nice advice now based on 20/20 hindsight.

But, as Senator, Mr. Bennett and his superannuated buddy Orrin Hatch have failed to halt the increase in spending, let along reduce it, or entitlements.

We need some politicians with spines and the willingness to get loud and ugly and do what needs to be done, not "get along with their good friends across the aisle."

Bennett and his cronies in Wahsington have left us in a totally unsustainable mess, thanks to their pandering and refusal to make the tough choices.

Entitlements are the worst part of the problem, but by no means the only part.

We are broke, unbelievably in debt, and unwilling to make the slightest cuts or reductions in spending. Necessarily, we should be cutting entire federal Departments (Education, Energy and Commerce to start with) reduce the number of federal civilian workers by 50%, and end all refundable tax credits. Then, on the second day....

Here's what is wrong with the Republican Party of today. Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves because of it to. It's these US House radicals in office holding up the process of our government and you to. But have they been accused yet of the banking giant they worked for of being involved in an international money laundering scheme involving billions of dollars. The bank used a series of fake accounts based on stolen identities to funnel money back to clients such as drug trade criminals. The complicit nature of the management of the bank running the scheme suggests that someone in government like the CIA or Federal Reserve must have been aware of the wire transfers. 1,000 pages of customer account records he claims are evidence of an international money-laundering scheme involving hundreds of billions of dollars by the global banking giant, which reportedly is under investigation by a U.S. Senate committee. That's 1,000 pages of evidence Sen. Hatch. Robert Bennett says "entitlement spending must change", but whose entitlement is the real question.

I told you I would tell you the truths.

I didn't say you would like it Utah.

Entitlement spending must change - Title

You are right.

however....

** Bush signs $700 billion bailout bill' - AP - Published by Denver Post - By Tom Raum - 10/03/08

However it did NOT factually change under your leadership Mr. Bennett...

or, the Republican party that DOUBLED our national debt when they had the majority in the House, Senate and office of the Presidency.

Almost exclusive government control....

From 2001-2006.

Of course all of this Obama money would be funneled through private corporations - this is a gift to corporate America. I should think you conservatives would love this. The federal government must become the employer of last resort - there is no other way out.

Well that's just great Bob. What you seem to have forgotten is that Ronald Reagan foresaw this problem and millions of wage earners have been paying more into the Social Security Fund for over twenty-five years to create a surplus to handle this problem. When you start cutting entitlement programs, wage earners are going to ask where the money went. When the answer is that it was spent so people like Mitt Romney could have huge tax cuts, you are going to see problems. It may not be riots in the streets, but it will be a riot at the ballot box. The Republican Party will have a lot of explaining to do, when the chickens come home to roost.

There is only one way to bring this Country out of the economic disaster it is in. All entitlement programs must be eliminated immediately! Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and government bailouts must be abolished.

The Founding Fathers established this Country on the central principle that a man must work to provide for himself, and if he will not work, he will not eat. The rejection of this principle has led to economic chaos and widespread misery.

The government cannot give to one without taking from another. No economic system can survive for long when the government takes from hard working, productive citizens and give to the lazy and slothful who do nothing to contribute to society or even their own maintenance. The incentive to work is destroyed, and pretty soon, no one works and all sit around with their hands out.

As things currently stand, more than half of the country contributes little to nothing in income tax. This cannot continue. These people must begin to pay their fair share of taxes, just like those who actually work hard for their income. This is the only way for this Country to survie and prosper.

Old folks paid for their "entitlements". Senators on the other hand do not pay enough for their additional retirement payments. These are 'fully vested' far too soon and pay out far too much. They are subsidized by the taxpayer. It is congressional 'entitlements' that need to be changed or canceled. Most senators are millionaires living off the people.

Peacetime? There hasn't been a year of "peacetime" since I was born. Those who paid into the system (us included) are ENTITLED to the money we put in. Change things like military spending. It's a no brainer.

Hi Pagan,

I can't help but notice that you reference a bipartisan stimulus bill that was even supported by now-President Barack Obama. Tell me again -- do you consider it a bad thing or a good thing that the stimulus bill was passed? Surely your critiques are value-based and not party-based, aren't they?

Additionally, you bring up the fact that the national debt increased under George W. Bush's tenure. As you also appear to be, I am sorely disappointed that this was the case. That said, I am even more infuriated at President Obama who has increased the national debt by more dollars in under 4 years than President Bush did in 8 years.

So, here we are again. Are you concerned about the national debt and principles of fiscal responsibility (as your post suggests that you are), or are you concerned about partisan politics without regard to actual changes to the debt?

We do need to address entitlements. Social Security is an easy fix. Medicare not so easy. The primary problem with Medicare is the exponential increase in healthcare costs. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will eventually help contain medical costs, though it would've controlled costs even more if the public option had been included.

But the biggest impediment to reform is a totally dysfunctional Congress, primarily because the Republican Party is being held hostage by it's most extreme members. For sure nothing is going to happen before Nov. 2012. Republicans need to change from their primary goal of destroying Obama, no matter the cost, to working together for the well-being of all Americans.

That said, I am even more infuriated at President Obama who has increased the national debt by more dollars in under 4 years than President Bush did in 8 years. - Hawkeye79 | 1:41 p.m. Feb. 20, 2012



Then why did you vote for any president after Ronald Regan Hawkeye?

Regan tripled the debt from $1 trillion to $3 trillion dollars.

George W. Bush took it from $5 trillion.

If you are going by dollar amounts, then this is GREATER, correct?

Obama inherited....$10 trillion dollars in debt.

But here, you ONLY decry the debt Obama added.

And yet, Obama has not done EQUAL TOO the debt of George W. Bush. Obama has not DOUBLED the national debt.

If we follow your logic, you would find fault with Obama....if he added just one dollar, to the national debt because it was 'greater' than the debt George W. Bush added.

But Obama has NOT, factually added the volume of debt in a side-by-side comparison.

Bottom line,

Bush doubled the debt.

Obama, has not.

And I love when Republicas claim everything bad is 'bipartisan'...

when George W. Bush signed the legislation for the first bailouts.

Good day.

So long as democrats are elected in sufficient numbers.

Social Security recipients will not be asked to sacrifice without sacrifices from the very rich.

Otherwise, the middle class and the poor will carry the ALL of the burden of balancing the budget.

Under Bush we borrowed $0.18 of every dollar spent, under Obama its $0.42. Neither are very responsible. Someone must change our lemming-like rush to the cliffs of financial ruin. The opinions posted are more concerned with shooting the messenger than finding a solution.

'Under Bush we borrowed $0.18 of every dollar spent, under Obama its $0.42. Neither are very responsible. ' - casual observer | 8:22 p.m. Feb. 20, 2012

But total numbers reveal that...

Bush borrowed $1 for every $1 we spent (doubled the national debt) and Regan borrowed $2 for every $1 we spent. (Tripled the debt)

Obama inherited $10 trillion in debt from Bush.

Obama is AT $5 trillion.

So Obama, to date is 0.50 for every $1 we spent previously.

You can't fix eight years, in four.

Bush doubled the Debt.

Obama, has not.