Entitlement hypocrisy

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • WestGranger West Valley City, Utah
    April 19, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    For decades now democrats have been painting any proposed republicans proposal that includes fiscal responsibility as mean spirited, cold and heartless. Standard practice for democrats, blatant hypocrisy is a common occurrence. Conservatives have always been compassionate towards seniors. Obama desperately wants more money for the extravagant costs of Obama care. This is just another liberal lie about conservatives.

  • OldSalt94 Murray, UT
    April 18, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    Want to eliminate the debt? And entitlements? Make congress take a fifty percent pay cut, and no "retirement". The problem is getting them to do that. How do you make a change like that happen? Vote them out and get someone in new willing to fight for the citizens and to accept those changes. Unfortunately it won't happen overnight if at all.
    So we keep whining. Take action get involved.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    April 17, 2013 9:22 p.m.

    Every congressman who lives off the public (all of them) is hypocritical when they attack retirees receiving social security. The latter live off the money they themselves provided, while the former live off the public completely during their entire congressional life and then when they receive their publicly subsidized congressional retirement (that is not sufficiently funded by their own contributions) PLUS their social security of course. Guess who lives highest on the hog: the poor senior or the wealthy senator?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 17, 2013 7:42 p.m.

    Did anyone else pick up on how ironic it is that CI would use the term "passive/ aggressive" to describe others?

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    April 17, 2013 3:29 p.m.

    My political party is less corrupt than your political party. My party is less hypocritical than your party. My guy said it first.

    That's just the kind of childish rhetoric that we see every day. What we need is someone on each side of the aisle to step up and be a leader instead of a finger-pointer. Both sides of the aisle.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    April 17, 2013 3:01 p.m.

    Re: ECR The Republicans already DID accept tax increases only a few weeks ago. The ball is now in the Dems court.

    Re: Blue Could you please explain how anyone in America today could have "Speech" without using money? I'd really like to know.

    Re: Joe Blow Even though I agree with you in principle, getting all the unions, corporate and lobbying interests out of Washington D.C. would reduce the population of that town by about 80%. In other words, aint going to happen. Today the richest part of the country is in that D.C. Virginia, Maryland area. Mostly because of government money. Try getting legislators of either party to vote against that gravy train.

    Re: Kent C DeForrest To further your point, not all "entitlements" are necessarily stuff that only old people get. Look at welfare, food stamps, education assistance, ect. ect. ect. Things like that can also be seen as entitlements.

    Re: Joe Blow again Your right, in truth all presidents and congresses have in the last 50 years or so stolen from the "lock box" as Al Gore called it. They all should be in jail for that. Now we have to bail them out.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 17, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" again, how is it hypocrisy for the GOP to oppose a tax hike that has the carrot of spending cuts attached. Are you able to read minds and know that the GOP opposes the proposed bill because of hypocrisy or because they oppose tax increases?

    So far there is no evidence at all to point to hypocrisy. The only way that the GOP could be hypocrites would be if they supported the bill. They say they oppose tax increases, and are sticking to their guns.

    Also, FYI, the "Bush Tax Cuts" expired over 2 years ago.

    Again, tell me where the hypocrisy is. The GOP has said that they oppose tax hikes, and are fighting to stop tax hikes.

    The hypocrisy here is comes from Obama. Go to the Huffington Post and look up the article "WATCH: Obama Vowed Never To Cut Social Security Cost-Of-Living" and you can see Obama promise to never do what he is proposing now.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    LDS Liberal
    "There is NO way you can reduce the deficiet with spending cuts alone."

    Of course there is; Just like I do when I run out of money - I make choices about what I can afford

    You just do not want to deal with reality

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 17, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    USS Enterprise, UT

    Obama wants to raise taxes in exchange for the cuts in spending.


    As opposed to what?
    There is NO way you can reduce the deficiet with spending cuts alone.

    That is the key-stone of Republican Hypocrisy.

    We can Never do it out compromises, spending AND letting the "Bush tax cuts" expire.

  • Trust Logic Brigham City, UT, 00
    April 17, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    @DeForrest and @Mountanman, how is social security not an entitlement program? One group of people receive money from another group of people based on who they are and not what they did. Besides it sounds like you feel very entitled to receive it.

    There are no guarantees my friends! Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 17, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    To "Roland Kayser" and the other liberals out there. The republicans do not oppose the cuts to entitlements. They oppose the strings that Obama has attached to those cuts. Obama wants to raise taxes in exchange for the cuts in spending.

    In other words, you liberals are looking at this with your blinders on and are intentionally ignoring the part of the deal that is truely bad.

    I would love to hear how many liberals here would encourge their congressmen to vote for a bill that increased taxes on the rich by 15% if it also included the requirement that all entitlement programs are to be phased out within 10 years.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    April 17, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    Am I mistaken in suggesting that both the Republicans and the Democrats make mistakes? You could argue over which party is worse, but to what end?

    Many have pointed out that our entitlement programs as they currently stand are unsustainable. Notwithstanding, Democrat Pelosi insists that they are off the table in budget negotiations. Personally, I think that she is wrong.

    Bucking the Democratic hard liners, President Obama has affirmed that entitlement programs are part of the financial equation in lowering government spending. So now, as the letter to the editor explains, the Republicans who have long staunchly argued for entitlement cuts are surprisingly changing course and opposing President Obama. Curious, no? I think that they are wrong: first the Democrats, now the Republicans.

    Is that so hard?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 11:46 a.m.


    "S.S in not an entitlement because if you work, the government takes your money (FICA) and your employer matches that with the "promise" that you will receive YOUR money when you retire. "

    That's actually the exact definition of an entitlement because you're "entitled" to that money. Apparently your side of the aisle is so busy blaming entitlements and "lazy" people for the deficit that you feel you need to distance yourself from the terminology.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 17, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    Roland. Originally the term "entitlement" in the United States was used to identify federal programs that, like Social Security and Medicare, got that name because workers became "entitled" to their benefits by paying into the system, but in recent years the meaning has been distorted to refer also to benefits, like those of the food stamps program, which people become eligible to receive without paying into a system. Take your pick on the definition of entitlements.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 17, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    Everyone knows Medicare at 65 is patriotic and American
    64 1/2 and below is total red communism.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    Roland Kayser
    The Obama budget is a farce.
    Indeed all of Obama's budgets have been a farce - the last one not even receiving support from Democrats
    Therefore condemning the Ryan budget, while claiming to be a victim of those who see the farce in the Obama budget, is the epitome of hypocrisy

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 17, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    'Entitlement hypocrisy'


    Agreed - Great Letter!

    You mean like --

    Tea-Party Republicans spewing hatred of Socialism 24/7/365...
    Until THEY turn 65 and start collecting Social Security and Medicare,
    and then it's not Socialism and not an entitlement?

    You mean like --
    saying they want spending cuts,
    and then starting unfunded wars and spending like drunken sailors?

    That's why I can't support Republicans.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    April 17, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    Do any of those receiving social security care that money is being taken away from younger workers to fund it?
    Do they care that the younger workers will never receive anything back; because social security will be bankrupt before they retire?
    Any retired senior I have talked to; either tells me:
    “ The emperor does too have on clothes” meaning they are in total denial that social security will in the next 10-30 years be completely unsustainable: too many retired; being supported by too few workers.
    Or: I was taxed, and I want to get what I was promised, I know it is unfair, but I do not care, you need to just pay the tax, and save for your own retirement.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 17, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    To Mountanman: The word "entitlement" might not mean what you think it means, but social security and medicare are most certainly entitlement programs.

    To lost in D.C.: The Ryan budget is a farce. It is not even a budget, it contains no budgets for any government departments. It actually increases the deficit for the first decade, even if you believe its magic asterisk assumptions, which virtually no economists do.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 17, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    Ok, Roland,
    Where was your indignation when the dems did the same thing with Ryan’s budget?

    You obviously close your eyes to every dem action

    LBJ set the precedent, unfortunately followed by all his successors – BO being the worst

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 17, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    "and the government already spent it all and all is left is an IOU in the "trust" fund! How did that happen? LBJ stole it and spent it all"

    Mountanman. Care to list all the president and congress that dipped into SS trust fun.

    It is certainly a much longer list than just LBJ.

    Yes, we have been duped by the Govt, but some of that Govt had a big red R by their name.

    I think that you know that. Why not be honest?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 17, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    I Have Paid Into Social Security All My Life And Expect It To Be There When I Retire. I don't Accept As An Excuse That We can't Afford It Because Of The War In Iraq Or Mismanagement Of The War In Afganistan.

    The Solution To Dealing With Stupid Wars Is To Deploy The Fact Checkers Before We Deploy The Troups, And Not Enter Into War We Are Not Willing To Do What It Takes To Win And Then Get Out.

    If This Means I Have An Entitlemen Mentality, Please Forgive Me.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 17, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    S.S in not an entitlement because if you work, the government takes your money (FICA) and your employer matches that with the "promise" that you will receive YOUR money when you retire. Well, now its the government's money and the government already spent it all and all is left is an IOU in the "trust" fund! How did that happen? LBJ stole it and spent it all on his failed, "great society" program! It really doesn't matter that he was a Democrat, the grand larceny still happened! Congratulations America, you have been duped by your government, again. It was never the government's money but that didn't matter did it?

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    April 17, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    Good letter, Roland. Yes, the hypocrisy of this particular statement could almost be seen as a Republican attempt to outdo themselves, which is hard to accomplish.

    But I would take exception to your assumption that Social Security is an entitlement. Even the Republicans should argue that point. They won't, but they should.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 17, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    "Above all, you have to demand serious campaign finance reform. Your voice won't matter as long as money is regarded as "speech." "

    BINGO Blue

    Until you get all corporate and union money and lobbying perks out of the system, nothing much else matters.

    Unfortunately, we are going in the wrong direction, as this last presidential election was the most expensive in history.

    If the money was out, most of our other problems would fix themselves.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    So what will you do about it?

    Will you demand that political candidates explain and defend their positions, and hold them accountable through your votes and your campaign contributions, or will you just dutifully march into the voting booth and robotically vote straight-party like you always do?

    We have the government we deserve, and that's nothing to be proud of.

    You can grouse about it, or you can start engaging people in serious, thoughtful conversation for the purpose of improving the quality of political candidates.

    Above all, you have to demand serious campaign finance reform. Your voice won't matter as long as money is regarded as "speech."

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    Silly letter that conveniently leaves out critical facts

    The token cuts in social security were only proposed in response to massive tax increases and continued irresponsible spending

    They are not a serious attempt at reform, but merely a manipulative attempt to divert attention to the general failure of the larger Obama budget

    The cost is not remotely worth the benefit

    The major hypocrisy here, is the left crying foul over Republican refusal to take the bait of token changes to entitlement, in a budget proposal that accelerates economic suicide, in a blatantly manipulative passive/aggressive attempt to divert attention from their continued economic irresponsibility

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 17, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    Oh my goodness people.

    Are you trying to play one-upmanship?

    Which side is worse? Does it really matter?
    It is clear by these posts that both sides are hypocrites.

    Both sides will use virtually ANYTHING and EVERYTHING done or proposed by the other side as a club.

    And we fall for it hook, line and sinker.

    Unfortunately, we don't want any and all good ideas or good solutions. We only want solution proposed by OUR party, and will staunchly REJECT all ideas by the other one.

    How can we possibly improve things that way?

    We better wake up and put America over party. And we better do it soon.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    April 17, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    "Who are the REAL hypocrites?"

    The people who have been crying for cuts in entitlements but are now crying foul when those cuts are proposed by the president they have vilified for four years. Those are the real hypocrits.

    The other side (the Democrats) has resisted cuts but are now trying to come to a reasonable middle ground and accepting that some cuts will be required in order to balance the budget. The unhypocritical thing for the Republicans to do now would be to accept some tax increases that they have resisted for so long. (And I'm not talking about just letting Bush tax cuts expire) That would show that the Republicans are trying to come to some middle ground, now that they are getting what they want, or at least what they said they want.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 17, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    What did the Democrats say about the Ryan plan that cut some of the GROWTH in some entitlement spending? We saw adds on TV of Republicans supposedly pushing old grandma off a cliff and accused Republicans of staving women and children. And now Obama says he wants to cut S.S and now we see "acceptance" from the left but no cries about pushing old people of cliffs or staving women and children! Who are the REAL hypocrites?

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    April 17, 2013 7:59 a.m.

    You expect repubs not to be hypocrites? That just isn't going to happen. Remember when they cheered Bush for setting a date to withdraw from Iraq but when Obama went ahead and withdrew from Iraq, they all bashed him for it? It's like that with repubs, they will never accept anything Obama does as a positive.
    Obama could give them all a million dollars tax free and they would criticize him for it.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 17, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    I have to agree with most posters above. Hypocrisy? Yes. Surprisingly so? Not at all.

    It is my belief that if you were to offer the most hard line conservatives and strident liberals in Congress the following deal, about half would take it. "You can keep your seat and remain in power for the rest of your life if you will flip your political views to the opposite side."

    On both sides, there are folks who truly believe what they say. But on both sides there are folks who would say anything if it kept getting them elected.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 17, 2013 7:25 a.m.

    Great letter Roland and to answer your question, NO we haven't seen this kind of hypocrisy ever. It's further proof that the GOP. Is completely out of touch and not capable of leading as presently constructed. They don't care about the debt. They don't care about the economy. They don't care about America.

    They care about one thing, power. They covet the power and position which president Obama currently holds.

    Even if it means attacking their own positions!

    This is further proof that Obama could cure cancer and repubs would attack him for it.

    My oh my how desiring power can go to the head. It reminds me of amalickiah from the scriptures. He could care less what happened to his nation and people, as long as he had power. We all know what happened to him. If the GOP doesn't change they too shall face a similar fate. They already are. They haven't won the popular vote in a presidential election in quite some time!

  • chilly Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 7:22 a.m.

    "I know that all politicians are occasionally guilty of hypocrisy, but have we ever seen anything this blatant?"

    Not since 2008 when Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" for running up the national debt, and after being elected, outdoing Bush's debt spending by a long shot.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    April 17, 2013 6:35 a.m.

    These guys have an automatic pay increase every year. I'm sure they feel entitled to it. They feel entitled to take every ones ssi if they want. They have a way to take any ones 401 if they want. Who is the entitled.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    April 17, 2013 5:56 a.m.

    Great letter Roland, but when you ask the question, "... but have we ever seen anything this blatant?" my answer is, well, yeh...almost everyday.

    Just a couple of examples from close to (your) home:

    Mitt Romney's campiagn to end "Obamacare" when the basis of that healthcare bill came from the program promoted by Governor Romney and passed by the Massachesets Legilature.

    Larry Craig's hardline stance against gay and lesbian rights even though he was caught soliciting from an undercover officer in the Minneapolis Airport.

    Yes, there is hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle but is this the most blatant examople of Republican hypocrisy? You might gat an argument on that one.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    April 17, 2013 5:52 a.m.

    It's not surprising at all. As soon as Obama cut some waste from medicare they ALL said it was an attack on Medicare and seniors. It's nothing less than childish.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 17, 2013 5:38 a.m.

    Re: ". . . all politicians are occasionally guilty of hypocrisy, but have we ever seen anything this blatant?"

    Yes, we have.

    When Obama raided the Social Security programs -- welfare programs that sorta work and are, at least partially, self-funded -- in order to promote and force the move to his legacy program, Obamacare.

    Which is not self-funded, and is widely known to be completely unworkable.

    Even more hypocritical than that, however, is how Obama and Democrats, aided by their captive media sycophants, attempt to sell themselves as champion of the "little guy," when they've done more to hurt real people than any administration in US history.