Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
Yeah, if we don't do anything about either entitlements OR interest payments. We do have an exploding population compared to 40 years ago. Of course our social programs will increase, we have more people. We also have more paying in.
How could there be "no money" for those things, when the taxable population is increasing, even if rates stayed the same as now? That would be only relatable to interest compounding (mostly to interest compounding) The budget won't stay at X = value in 2011, when it's 2070. The budget will increase. Percentage of budget devoted to things will change, of course.
I've agreed that SS just needs a little tweek, but Medicare needs attention, and Medicaid is in deep trouble due to the states being broke and unable to contribute their portions.
The answer is not just to get rid of the programs, no matter how much Ron Paul would like to. They are valuable programs that help our citizens, help those in need. We have to ask the question, "Do we want to remain a first world country, or not?" Because remaining first world is an investment in ourselves - and we don't even do as much as other first world countries do for their citizens now. We already are no longer in the Top Ten or even Twenty for health, education, happiness, longevity, innovation, etc.
I'm tired of people calling these programs "entitlements" and speaking as if they are welfare, or something evil, they most certainly are not. We care about our fellow Americans, and that is what these programs are about, and that is why WE, as a country, decided to do them. I'm sick and tired of people demonizing these programs and attempting to characterize them as evil.
|
ask the cbo, they're the ones who put that in their report. apparently, based on their numbers, the currently 60% of the fed budget would grow to the point that there would only be enough money left after the big three of ss/medicare/aid to pay interest on the debt.
and as i've said elsewhere, the word entitlements is a misnomer. unless of course the people getting it out didn't pay in-which does happen.
the issue isn't that 'we paid in, we should get back'. it's that what we're paying in isn't enough to cover what's going out-not so much the ss portion as the medicare portion.
and as the report said, medical costs have exploded, while we have gotten no healthier. i think one issue is that doctors call for every test under the sun, even when not needed, to cover their ass if something odd was to pop up in future with a patient. or, you have insurance, so they call for stuff that you may not need. for instance, i have a back that'll go on occasion-it's the muscle in my lower back. it happens, been that way for 30 years. but recently the hospital here decided they needed an mri machine-and of course it needed paying for. so, the next time i went in with a back issue, they said maybe you should get an mri.
or not.
we called a friend, an orthopedic surgeon, and told him what the gen'l practitioner had said. he said there was no need for one.
oh, and the dr-on the hospital board. i have no doubt that most people would have had it done because the doc said so, and hey, the ins will pay...so what the heck.
ha, then there are the commercials...does everyone know you can actually get a prescription for thinning eyelashes-so you can have thick lashes again...apparently as some women age, they get thin eyelashes.
this is a problem??