Insinuating the reps are the party of entitlement is ridiculous. EVERY single federal entitlement program was started by dems.. all of them. This includes SS, food stamps, housing subsidies, unemployment insurance, medicare, medicaid etc. While entitlement spending may have increased during repub Presidencies more than dems, they really can only veto spending and not all of it. Congress controls the 'purse strings', it would be much more interesting (and accurate) to see how much entitlement spending increased by party control of Congress. Also, entitlement spending will naturally fluctuate with economic conditions and demographic factors so in a sense they have a mind of their own. The party who implemented them bears the majority of responsibility. Also, why is this even a point that liberals are trying to make, are you guys saying you DON'T want or agree with entitlements? We all know this is bullshit so I'm still gonna vote for the party that at least fakes conservatism instead of the one with their name on EVERY entitlement. BTW when people complain this is two sides of the same coin.. this is what they mean, and they're right. Ron Paul 2012
I have no respect for a party or a person who claims that food stamps and housing subsidies are in the same category as S.S., unemployment compenstion, medicare. It is willful ignorance at best.
The Fed is working very hard on removing the stigma of accepting handouts. I dunno, perhaps a cheater has more self respect than someone who has their hand out.
I don't get what's so hard for you to understand that a ponzi scheme even one you are forced into can be considered an entitlement program? It's not an indictment of the contributor but the stupidity inherent in the mechanism of the system.
Where did I say that it wasn't? S.S. is an entitlement program. So is medicare. The reason their called entilement programs is because the people paid for these programs up front through taxes. It's the combining of things like food Stamps, welfare and S.S. that I have a problem with. They are in no way similar. Two guys need a ride and have no car. One sticks his thumb out and hopes for the generosity of a driver to give him a lift. The other guy needs a ride too. He pays for a taxi. See the difference?
I'm sorry, how should we phrase things so as to not offend your overly delicate sensibility vis a vis social security?
SS is simply a paid into retirement plan, and people, as you say, are entitled to the money when they retire. The other programs are aid, and should be noted as such, as I think you're trying to say here. A retirement program, forced or not, is still your money. The aid is money from taxpayers in the hope, in vain sometimes I'll readily admit, to those who qualify in the eyes of the government.
Cap'n this argument has happened before.. i'm NOT saying that if you pay into a program, you are some freeloader living off the system if you take the benefits. In fact just the other day I was making this point in an argument about medicare. Each one of these programs is flawed BUT if an individual has paid in (forced or not) then that individual should take the benefits. In this thread libs are trying to paint the reps as the party of entitlement, my response was simply to point out the absurdity of that position because the fact is ALL federal entitlement programs, or social programs if you prefer, were implemented by the dem party. Also these are seen as accomplishments by the dem party so i'm not sure why libs are even trying to make a point of this. Hope this clarifies what I'm arguing here.