I know why they did it was to get a certain type of person to follow their ultimate goal to election. But I do not think people know what the entitlements if removed will directly impact your life and in fact they are talking about cutting or removing services you are receiving.

Just wondering if you realize you are that welfare recipient they are talking about?

If you are not the 1% you are the 99% welfare recipient of taking the 1% money they are talking about.

So when I say vote against your own best interest it is not as has been said by some at HT that it is your neighbor that you think is getting a 200.00 check a month that has a better car than you. It is you voting against your interest that is getting a much bigger Welfare check than that mother that is getting or food stamps for the feed children. It is YOU that is getting so much more than that chump change.

Cutting entitlements is why New Orleans looked like a 3rd world country during Katrinia with people sitting on their roof.

So vote against your own interest but know who/whom entitlements you are voting against.

This is a good place to start.

I do appreciate infrastructure, especially roads. I wouldn't want to have to go everywhere on dirt tracks. Other than infrastructure, I don't want much from government, particularly I don't want them intervening in other nation's business on my account or expecting me to pay for that nonsense.

So I don't much care what benefits get cut. Nor will I vote for any tools presented in national elections.

When the bulk of entitlements are for the ones that need it less. Oil Companies, Farming industries. If you remember Romney visiting one of the farmers to show how he felt for the everyday farmer. It was a farmer that was a million dollar baby.

It is a myth that the Welfare babies that is being used by the Republicans. The real Welfare collectors are your oil companies, Corporate farmers.

Ending oil and gas subsidies will save $78 billion annually.

Ending direct farm subsidies will save $10 biillion annually. Crop insurance provided by the feds is about another $1 billion per year. The bulk of the farm bill passed this summer is for food stamps, $80 billion per year.

One might actually do some research and then possibly consider reworking the argument about who the real welfare recipients are.

Arithmatic

Ya...so oil companies are run on the solidarity principle aka mutual funds? Who knew...

And they'd be willing to pay a few cents more in gasoline tax to improve the roads, of better still, institute a 10 cent a gallon tax to fund the wars - which would end soon enough when we stop borrowing money from the Chinese to fight who knows what in Central Asia.

Maybe the way to look at it is that the citizenry is going to be much more likely to go along with an older retirement age and higher payroll taxes to keep Social Security going, if they know that the extraordinarily profitable oil companies don't get unneeded and unwarranted subsidies. Or that they'll be willing to pay, say, a tiny tax on food (given the volume it would only be a few cents for every $10 spent) to fund food stamps. If they knew that massive corporate farm subsidies were eliminated.

*

I think you have a good point, David.

I know that I agree with this, for the most part.

On principle, I do not agree at all with subsidies for private industry from the government.

But those subsidies also include helping people that can't afford fuel costs and to stabilize food prices. So unless one disagrees with that kind of help, they also support subsidies.

From Consumer Energy Report:

"The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of oil). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in “oil subsidies.”

I don't think there is a politician that has the guts to do the right thing in this regard, however--much less enough of them to accomplish it.

I've got news for you.

You could have multiplied entitlements by 100 and there would still be people that received them sitting on their roofs waiting for someone to rescue them.

This is what I ask that you consider when it appears to me in your mind that when you hear Entitlements the first thing you see is HoneyBoo Boo collecting money and having babies at 16.

Should every citizen in Louisiana show Personal Responsibility and have sufficient funds to cover floods since they know they live in a bathtub? or Move to another state or Should the government let them drown and balance the country's budget. We need every penny for that budget ya know.

The Southern part of the US get 1.50 return for every dollar they contribute to the country. Is that fair? I live in the North you get more of my tax dollars than I get.

Bobby Jindal letter to Obama

Louisiana has already spent $8 million, Jindal wrote. The declaration provides for direct federal assistance, for which the state will bear 25 percent of the cost.

You can't have it both ways.

You want them?

I'll pay to send them to your state and you can just keep your money and use it for them up there and have them as your neighbors. Maybe then you'd understand some of the social problems others lament, including crime.

I pay higher taxes in Louisiana because we have so many residents who do not.

You're accusing me of taking your money again--you did that on another thread and told me to look at the entitlement thread when you stated I took entitlements.

I still don't see you backing up what you said, that I, personally, take entitlements.

Still waiting for your explanation.

And many states send money to Louisiana (by way of the Federal government) to help you out, demi.

Louisiana gets more than a dollar back for every dollar that comes from Louisiana for Federal taxes.

I can't help it if Louisiana's losers are subsidized with your tax dollars--as I say, you get more of what you subsidize.

And we're considered a low tax state.

Losers? People that need help are losers?

*

Pathetic try.

Some people that need help aren't losers at all.

Some people that need help are semi-losers.

Some people that need help are losers.

Bush inherited an economy that was bringing in so much money, that in 2000 that economy was bringing in money to government coffers at the rate of 20% of GDP. Obama inherited an economy that was bringing in money to government coffers at the rate of 14.9% of GDP.

Bush inherited an economy when no major wars were in progress. Obama inherited an economy when two major wars were in progress.

Bush inherited a growing economy. Obama inherited a shrinking economy.

Republicans don't want to talk about Bush because that's so passe. Republicans want to talk about Obama because he caused all this mess.

I don't trust Republican logic.

In 2010 the federal government collected $2.2 trillion, an amount equal to 14.9 percent of GDP.

Federal revenue has ranged from 14.4 of GDP in 1950 to 20.6 percent in 2000 over the past five decades, averaging 17.9 percent.

The individual income tax has been the largest single source of federal revenue since 1950, averaging 8 percent of GDP.

Payroll taxes swelled following the creation of Medicare in 1965. Taxes for Medicare, combined with periodic increases in Social Security taxes, caused payroll tax revenue to grow from 1.6 percent of GDP in 1950 to 6 percent or more since 1980.

Payroll taxes also include railroad retirement, unemployment insurance, and federal workers� pension contributions.

Revenue from the corporate income tax fell from between 5 and 6 percent of GDP in the early 1950s to 1.3 percent of GDP in 2010.

Excise taxes fell steadily throughout the same period, from nearly 3 percent of GDP in 1950 to 0.5 percent in recent years.

The remaining sources of revenue have fluctuated less, together claiming between 0.5 and 1.0 percent of GDP since 1950 and standing near the bottom of that range in 2010.

-Ron-

CBO concludes that the explosive path of federal debt under the alternative fiscal scenario underscores the need for large and timely policy changes to put the federal government on a sustainable fiscal course. Policymakers will need to increase revenues substantially above historical levels as a percentage of GDP, decrease spending significantly from projected levels, or adopt some combination of those two approaches. In fact, the current laws that underlie CBO's baseline projections provide for significant changes of those kinds in coming years; many other approaches to constraining future deficits are possible as well.

So my question is, "Why would anyone want to continue the Bush-era tax cuts, full well knowing that this will increase our debt to unmanageable levels?"

-Ron-

Now taxes , that's personal.......

Sorry, you lost me. What is a pathetic try? Me asking a question of you? You are the one that called them losers. And I'm not allowed to ask about that?

Like I've said before, the more people post, the more the true person comes through.

Get behind that rock!!

One that fails consistently, especially a person with bad luck or poor skills.

A person with a record of failing; someone who loses consistently.

Someone or something that is marked by consistently or thoroughly bad quality, performance, etc.

A misfit, especially someone who has never or seldom been successful at a job, personal relationship, etc.

A person who one feels is below one's social stature.

A worthless person.

People who are losers as the result of an action or event, are in a worse situation because of it or do not benefit from it.

Loser means your going nowhere in life.

Someone who has never been successful and is never likely to be.

Someone who behaves well/badly when they have lost.

A person who is incompetent or unable to succeed.

Someone who has never or seldom been successful at a job, personal relationship, etc.

-Ron-

Why, yes, it is, thank you. Glad you noticed that I've never refered to anyone receiving entitlements as losers. Or to the First Lady's physique in a critical way. Or to an overweight person as someone who will cost me money. Or...the list goes on...

I have said I hated the NY Yankees. Oh, the horror. But, that got your feathers up. But, referring to people that need some help as losers -- well, that seems to be just A-OK with you.

And I have no patience for anyone not willing to deal in facts. Glad that comes through.

*

Unlike you, I apparently have lots of patience with people that won't face facts.

Patience with people that won't face the facts that there are losers that refuse to take care of themselves and depend on other people to do it for them.

That is A FACT.

Those are the facts.

I never said Bush was without fault, or that everything was Obama's fault.

So what's your beef?

Just imagine the firestorm that would have ensued had our roles in this been reversed.

You would have heard speech #2.

I did call SOME people losers.

They are.

Posted by demifloyd 8 (My Page) on
Tue, Sep 11, 12 at 19:25

Oh, we all now what the deal is.

I did call SOME people losers.

They are.

o
RE: Federal Government Entitlements

Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
Tue, Sep 11, 12 at 19:26

Don't come out from behind that rock yet.

o
RE: Federal Government Entitlements

Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on
Wed, Sep 12, 12 at 8:15

Yes, frank, but I think she's still be typing! It certainly would have gone on and on and...

*

How charming.

You are prattling about me as though I am not here, but not making sense.

If not, then what in the world was that post about--what was the reference?

Never mind.

About all I associate with your posts are these types of remarks--when someone posts primarily to taunt or insult other posters and to apparently gain favor with posters that they think are cool so they will be included in the "gang."

In other words, not facts and not even an opinion about topics--behavior often displayed by junior high girls or bitter old women.

But seriously... it's not the same party it used to be, which is glaringly obvious, and hasn't been in quite some time. Logic was pushed out the window because it wouldn't fit in the same room along with greed, ego, and moral bankruptcy... in my opinion, and judging by what is said and done by the representation of said party.

There is, of course, corruption on both sides of the aisle, but when you look for logic, it simply doesn't exist on the far right side. Trickle down economics is a perfect example. There isn't a speck of logic to be found in that con game, but people still buy into it, along with all the other propaganda and horse pucky they try to sell.

The largest entitlements go to people and corporations and industries that don't need them to begin with. The tiny slice handed out to those who actually need it is always called into stereotypical question by those who view money and/or power as the end all to end all. You know how the game works.

How do you know who "views money and power as the end all to end all?"

Those "tiny slices" are killing the goose that lays the golden egg--unfortunately those "tiny slices" keep voting to keep the slices coming.

Wonder whose going to be left to provide those entitlements?

Certainly not the almost half of the country that doesn't pull their weight.