It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Entitlement Programs, what you should expect.

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I don't agree with cutting benefits for the older generation who payed into the system, but, if stricter guidelines were used, proof of citizenship mandatory, the illegals would have a much harder time scamming. How can the same social security number be used 50 times? Run that number through the system and see how many times it pops up as someone else. I know my brother in law's number showed 6 people drawing benefits from it, none of them him!. Anyone who is fit to work, should have limited time for benefits. 1 year, find a job or else. Generations of welfare families are draining the money paid in by people working 60 hours a week just to put food on the table. The people who need it and paid into it, will never see their money.




posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Here's the thing, I realize that we have the elderly who have paid into the system for decades, I realize we have people are disabled to the point where they cannot work, I realize we have people who have fallen on hard times with the economy ... this economic crisis has impacted EVERY family in the United States including my own.

Here's the fact: the present level of entitlements are NOT sustainable. 49% of the population pay no Federal income taxes. As the Baby Boomer generation (my parents) retire the younger generations like mine are going to be paying more and more into Social Security and in return my generation will get an even lesser payout.

Something has to give, benefits and entitlements have to be cut. Social Security was ment to be a supplement to ones savings not as a sole source of income. Additionally it was only intended that one would draw Social Security for no more than 5 years due to the lower life expectancy rate of the 1930s. Today we have people retiring at 63 and living for another 20+ years. My grandma is 84 and hasent worked in 20 years. We MUST raise the retirement age to at least 72.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231
Here's the thing, I realize that we have the elderly who have paid into the system for decades, I realize we have people are disabled to the point where they cannot work, I realize we have people who have fallen on hard times with the economy ... this economic crisis has impacted EVERY family in the United States including my own.

Here's the fact: the present level of entitlements are NOT sustainable. 49% of the population pay no Federal income taxes. As the Baby Boomer generation (my parents) retire the younger generations like mine are going to be paying more and more into Social Security and in return my generation will get an even lesser payout.

Something has to give, benefits and entitlements have to be cut. Social Security was ment to be a supplement to ones savings not as a sole source of income. Additionally it was only intended that one would draw Social Security for no more than 5 years due to the lower life expectancy rate of the 1930s. Today we have people retiring at 63 and living for another 20+ years. My grandma is 84 and hasent worked in 20 years. We MUST raise the retirement age to at least 72.


Um, It IS 72! (Thank you Ronald Reagan)

For me anyway....

Where does all the money go from the people who never even make it to retirement age?

Both MY parents died in their 50's, And out of 4 Grandparents, only 1 made it to that magic number of 65....
Of the 4 siblings in my family, who paid into the system for DECADES, And died well before retirement,
I'm am the lone survivor....
I'm starin' 60 dead in the eye myself, And I really don't expect I'll be around in 12 years...

Course, the pundits don't take these kind of statistics into account.....



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231
Here's the thing, I realize that we have the elderly who have paid into the system for decades, I realize we have people are disabled to the point where they cannot work, I realize we have people who have fallen on hard times with the economy ... this economic crisis has impacted EVERY family in the United States including my own.

Here's the fact: the present level of entitlements are NOT sustainable. 49% of the population pay no Federal income taxes. As the Baby Boomer generation (my parents) retire the younger generations like mine are going to be paying more and more into Social Security and in return my generation will get an even lesser payout.

Something has to give, benefits and entitlements have to be cut. Social Security was ment to be a supplement to ones savings not as a sole source of income. Additionally it was only intended that one would draw Social Security for no more than 5 years due to the lower life expectancy rate of the 1930s. Today we have people retiring at 63 and living for another 20+ years. My grandma is 84 and hasent worked in 20 years. We MUST raise the retirement age to at least 72.



No no, tripple no. The present level of entitlements is sustainable with proper management, which the government refuses to put in place. This government takes money out of one pocket to solve a budget problem, but refuses to properly police that money and justify exactly who gets it.

They do this with just about every other money sink hole they approve. Then, invariably, we see countless media splashes about the corruption of those funds, and the way the money got spent in ways not authorized by the approvals and bills that were passed to create them. This is a government management problem, and it has been all along.

These turkeys get their way in congress and in the senate, and then they wash their hands with the execution of their ideas, and move on to some other piece of business.

We have no accountability for projects put in place, and THAT is the major problem with what goes on in the funding arena. Any business executive will tell you that the way this government spends money, and the way they manage what they have spent it on, would put you out of business in a year. And guess what, that day is gonna certainly come.

edit on 14-8-2012 by charlyv because: spelling where caught



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


I'll grant you that the last two presidents massively buggered up the economy, with Bush laying the foundation and Obama taking it to the next level. It, however is unsustainable and the entitlements must be controlled.

Regardless of the state of the economy - show me an instance where people on welfare vote for people who are seeking to trim benefits. Even should they have the ultimate desire to get back to work, which a majority of those unemployeed desire to do, they will vote for their self interest and always against entitlement reform.

We should be spending more on those who are willing to take initiative to improve their skills, use what government money we do wish to inject into the economy on trade/skill building efforts rather than toss large slugs at bogus green energy shops owned by contributors and we should spend less on those without initiative who are able bodied. It HAS to be more lucrative to work than sit on the dole.

Much reform is/should be easy, such as eliminating this nonsense whereby when someone gets a job they often immediately lose benefits, stripping them of the opportunity to establish themselves in a new position, hence causing the job to actually cut their quality of life. Were these folks allowed to keep their benefits for a period of time after gaining employment for 3 years, they would be off the dole. This obviously was the intent of the Clinton welfare reform which was very successful and why Obama's easing the work requirements (those work requirements, by the way include schooling and training) is so irresponsible. If you are out of work and can't find work, should you not be taking advantage of as much training as possible? Should you not be in school 40 hours a week if possible? Yes



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by BomSquad

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


The reason money moves out of the country is that we penalize people who keep their money here in the first place. Stop making it advantageous for people to move their money offshore, and people will stop doing it in a heart beat. Create incentives to re-invest the money here and people will start doing that too.


edit on 14-8-2012 by BomSquad because: (no reason given)


Tax rates are lower than they have been for many decades. Taxes are not the reason that everything has been moved offshore. The reason is simple GREED. Why make 85 cents when you cna make the whole dollar. Capitalism does not work unless it is operated within a moral enviroment.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trublbrwing
I don't think a multi millionaire who wants a job paying $200k can be trusted, that person is not in touch with the current economic conditions and is not capable of deciding where our resources should be directed. This isn't just Romney or Ryan, it applies to every ivy league graduate who has never gone hungry or worried about being homeless in one of the wealthiest nations on Earth.


Actually, it is $400k...but your point is still made and I agree whole-heartedly.
Pocket change for someone as wealthy as Romney...I doubt he'd even bother picking up his paycheck if he remembered it was payday.

I want a leader and example who has 'been to hungry' and worried about having to 'be outdoors'...and not just for a day or couple of nights...but who has spent a fair bit of time at the bottom where the majority of the rest of us dwell all the time.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


I'll tell you who else is not in touch with reality. The multi-generational welfare families, that have learned to play the entitlement programs for every penny they can squeeze out of them. The people who take advantage of the rest of us, who do pay into them, in the form of taxes. What about those people...huh....

And...add to that the now extra 15 million illegal aliens our current President has given the red light to, to now apply for all those benefits too. What about them.

Where do you think all that money, to keep supporting all those people, is going to come from. I see a tax revolution coming, and I'll be on board...I'm tired of being told, I have to take care of those, who won't take care of themselves.

I have said it before, I'll say it again. I believe in a helping hand...not an unlimited, hand out.

The current entitlement programs are in dire need of a major overhaul, and reigning in...so be it.

Des





edit on 13-8-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)


Actually, Clinton did that in a huge way back in 1996.
AS a result, AFDC was replaced by TANF

The maximum amount of time any one individual can receive federally funded cash assistance is 5 years...some states shorten that, even. Legal immigrants can not even apply until they have been legal residents for 5 years.


MAJOR GOAL

The four purposes of TANF are:

assisting needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes;
reducing the dependency of needy parents by promoting job preparation, work and marriage;
preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and
encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

Highlights of TANF

Work Requirements:

With few exceptions, recipients must work as soon as they are job-ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance.
To count toward a State’s work participation rate, single parents must participate in work activities for an average of 30 hours per week, or an average of 20 hours per week if they have a child under age six. Two-parent families must participate in work activities for an average of 35 hours a week or, if they receive Federal child care assistance, 55 hours a week.
Failure to participate in work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of a family’s benefits.
States cannot penalize single parents with a child under six for failing to meet work requirements if they cannot find adequate child care.
States must engage a certain percentage of all families and of two-parent families in work activities or face financial penalty. These required State work participation rates are 50 percent overall and 90 percent for two-parent families; however, States can reduce the targets they must meet with a caseload reduction credit. For every percentage point a State reduces its caseload below its FY 2005 level (without restricting eligibility), the credit reduces the States target participation rate by one percentage point.


There is a lot of information available on that page...it isn't like it used to be at all.
It isn't what you are thinking it is.




posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


I am glad you mentioned entitelment bloated freeloaders. We have roughly 500 millionaires in Congress who could afford their own health care. Yet they receive government health care paid for by us taxpayers. It is much better than the OBAMACARE they expect the rest of us to have. LET US CUT OUT THE MEDICAL BENEFITS FOR THE MILLIONAIRES BEFORE WE CUT BENEFITS TO THE POOR.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I would like to point out to you,....
most of those who are collecting social security and are on medicare, are seniors!! they were used to working before the social service system got so out of control, they basically had no other choice but to work or live in utter proverty!!! they paid into the system for their entire lives, or had husbands that were working and paying in....
the popularity of the social services didn't hit till sometime after I went into the workforce, it's a rather new thing.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join