If you’ve turned on the news at all, you’ve seen the drama circus that is going on in government right now over whether or not to make cuts to entitlement programs in order to reduce the deficit.
As you can guess, Democrats are vehemently AGAINST making cuts to programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, while Republicans say that it’s necessary in order to take care of the growing deficit.
So what will Obama do?
"Hmm...I'll sleep on it"
Dems are not going to be happy with the ol’ commander-in-chief if he decides to make cuts from entitlement programs. And that would be awful for him. Not only would it seriously risk another term as President, but my guess is that none of his democrat buddies would be willing to play pick-up basketball with him anymore. Take that!
Representative Judy Chu (D-Calif.) said about this issue,
“At a time when each millionaire is getting a $138,700 tax break a year from the government, there is no reason our seniors and the neediest amongst us need to struggle to pay their hospital bills. The debt must be addressed, but it should be done in a way that is fair to all. We should not balance the back of this budget on our nation’s seniors”
You go, girl. She’s absolutely right. We wanna address the deficit? Let’s do it! But not by making cuts to entitlement programs. After all, that’s not where most of our money is going ANYWAY!
Does “the war in Afghanistan” and “the war in Iraq” ring a bell to anyone? Yeah, well that’s where our precious greenbacks are being shipped off to. We gotta save the greenbacks people!!
But not by buying Kia. No. Don’t do that. HOW ABOUT…we don’t spend so much on wars that we don’t really need to be involved in??
Where your income tax money really goes
According to this pie chart, the US spends 54% of income tax money on military, and the rest on non-military spending. Got that? Over HALF of income tax goes to the military, while less than half is divided up for everything else. Furthermore, for working people, the percent of our taxes that goes toward social security has decreased in the past year: in 2010, 6.2% on earnings up to $106,800 went toward Social Security. In the current year (2011), that percent is down to 4.2. So less of our money is going to this program as it is!
SO. Entitlement programs help people and keep them alive. And war leads to death and destruction. Yet, the government is considering making cuts to entitlement programs instead of just siphoning less money into the military. Hmmm.
Doesn’t make sense to me. And actually, it doesn’t make sense to a lot of people. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center shows that “nearly twice as many Americans say it is more important to maintain the benefits from entitlement programs than it is to cut the budget deficit”. Democrats across the board are against making cuts to entitlement programs. Same with less affluent Republicans. SO it’s the rich Republicans that want to make cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Go figure…
Rich Republicans: "Screw you, old person!"
Consider this: if we cut from military spending whatever amount would be cut from entitlement programs, that would be a much smaller percentage, right? Cutting from entitlement programs WOULD effect people significantly. But if we cut the same amount from military spending, the affect would be less. So why not do that? Because we’re a nation that LOVES war. It’s the only way to maintain our superpower status, the government thinks. Whatever…the old granny above doesn’t care about nuking our enemies. She just needs money for her hip replacement.
Will we help her out? WILL WE?!?! It’s up to Obama. And if he cares AT ALL about his pick-up basketball games, he’ll make the right decision and refuse to make cuts to entitlement programs.
He shoots. WILL HE SCORE!?!?!
Little Fish in a Big Pond 
jackcurtis
July 9, 2011
Seems to me, Republicans and Democrats are posturing for their audiences while real people in the real world have no place in their calculations except as voters to sucker into line. I see politicians as really caring about themselves while talking about caring for us. Color me cynical, maybe.
But there is a real problem here though both sides talk around it. In both the U.S. and Europe, political promises have outrun the resources that exist to fund them.
That is occurring while the economies in both places are shrinking. The shrinkage leaves still fewer resources for government to use. And the more resources government taxes out of those economies, the worse that economy gets, because it has less to work with,
Your chart illustrates usage of income taxes; those are no longer the major funding for federal government. If you use a chart of total federal expenditure from all sources, you will see that social spending (pensions, welfare, health care) far exceeds any other category, If all the military spending were turned to social spending it wouldn’t come close to paying for it. If you confiscated all the wealth of the wealthy, it wouldn’t either.
This unpleasant reality is largely ignored by both parties, As long as they can spend borrowed and just printed money, they can fend off the financial collapse impending, But enlarging the debt by continued borrowing devalues the dollar. Your personal share of the present national debt has to be repaid out of taxes; it amounts to about $40,000 before interest is added, It goes up a lot if you figure in health care, social security and such obligations (see debtclock.org if you’re curious).
There really is a problem; our politicians are ignoring their real responsibilities. All of them!
If you’ve stayed with me clear to this point, you’re tougher (or more responsible) than most!
Anonymous
July 10, 2011
This is… mostly true. You’re only mistaken on one point. You lump together “social programs”. While that’s a lumping that makes sense… it is a little disingenuous. Here’s what you said:
“If you use a chart of total federal expenditure from all sources, you will see that social spending (pensions, welfare, health care) far exceeds any other category, If all the military spending were turned to social spending it wouldn’t come close to paying for it.”
Social spending does make up a large portion, but it’s not pensions and welfare that are doing it (those are actually QUITE small compared to overall military spending). Talk radio and the 24 hr news loves to use that “social spending” soundbyte because most people (especially conservatives) disagree with the way the US distributes pensions and welfare. The truth is, that the VAST majority, in fact, almost all of that social spending is TWO programs, medicare and social security. Medicaid is also a large part of that. These are programs that most people support and wish to receive someday, so these programs are much harder to attack or question.
The truth of the budget debate is SOMETHING needs to change. Some of that something is reducing spending… but another large part of that solution HAS to increase taxes. It just makes sense and I have a hard time understanding why many people in this country seem to be in denial about that.
You are right, the wealthy can’t bail us out of this on their own, nor should they. However, many people in this country aren’t aware that if they made just over $100,000 they pay the same amount of money (to the dollar) in social security taxes that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet do. We stop taxing the wealthy at $106,800, Social Security is actually a regressive tax system… I think this is a very important point that Grace makes, and should be better publicized. Perhaps more so than the soundbytes surrounding military spending or social spending. Taxes HAVE to be PART of any debt solution the government creates.
Grace
July 10, 2011
Couldn’t have said any of this better myself!! Thanks for the comment!
I agree completely about the need to increase taxes – and for everyone. While the rich complain about not wanting to give away more of their “hard-earned” money, in the grand scheme of things it really wouldn’t effect them at all. But that little bit of extra taxation WOULD go a long way in terms of helping the economy. So while they may whine about not being able to buy that second Beamer, they’d be doing the country a huge service. In terms of the poor, obviously they don’t want their taxes increased. And that is why they often vote Republican because the Republicans promise not to raise taxes. But what lower-earners don’t realize is that a small increase in taxes would actually go a long way for them – that money could be put toward welfare programs that are ultimately created for their benefit. So they’d be paying into a system that’s designed to help them. Anyway, long story short, an increase in taxes really would be helpful in giving this economy the boost it needs.
meredithancret
July 10, 2011
$100,000 is the cut-off for “rich” in this country (at least I believe it is, I need to check to see if that’s changed recently, but I don’t really want to slog through the IRS website right now, anyway. My point is,) $100,000 is not much money in the grand scheme of things…you make grand sweeping statements about not being able to afford that “Second Beamer”, but there was a short time when my mother (the main bread winner in my family and she has a doctorate) made that much money, I grant you. That was a very short time I admit, but there was no chance we could have afforded even one Beamer, let alone a second. We drove a single, used, mini-van.
Check out tax law before you assume who is going to be affected by the increase in taxes.
Also, do you know how the economy works? Buying that Beamer would have helped the economy? A group of people had jobs in a factory somewhere to build that car, they were paid to do that job. Because of that they were not unemployed and they were able to care for their family. The economy does not work because the government gives away free money to people who haven’t worked for it. The economy works because people produce and buy, pay for goods and are paid to make those goods in return.
Lastly, do you know how difficult it is to get on and stay on Welfare programs it is? I make less than $16,000 a year and can’t afford to pay for the company insurance I should be able to get as a full time employee. So I thought “Well I’ll get on state healthcare.” Guess what? I had to badger them for weeks to find a loophole, finally showing them the thousands of dollars in medical bills I had already built up in the last few months and they gave me healthcare. Welfare programs, in my experience, don’t work very well. I’d rather be paid more, because my company isn’t taxed as much, and be able to pay for my company health plan (which is much better than state healthcare, in case you were wondering.)
Whoops, last point I promise.
As for social security. I think that all people that have paid into it should receive the benefits. (My grandmother for one, my parents for another, Me and my brother and my girlfriend, as well.) But it needs to be phased out. Look at history, it was never meant to be a permanent plan.
Grace
July 11, 2011
Meredith – when I refer to the rich who whine that they cannot buy a second beamer, I’m definitely not talking about a family with an income of $100,000. Perhaps I should have clarified (I didn’t mean to offend), I’m talking about the uber-wealthy – the people with a mazzarati in the driveway, a heated in-ground swimming pool and pool house, and private tutors for the kids. I think it’s the millionaires of this country who could make a difference if they paid a bit more in taxes. The gap between rich and poor is huge right now – and growing. Redistribution of wealth would help to decrease that gap, and I think that’s needed. Many think that redistribution of wealth means taking money from the rich and just giving it to those who just sit around and don’t have jobs. But that is not the case. That money gets put into welfare programs that give people the boost they need in order to get a job. How can you hold down a job if you can’t even pay rent and are kicked out? If you have nowhere to send the kids while you work because you can’t afford daycare? If you can’t afford a car or public transportation to get to work? Welfare programs help people overcome those barriers so that they can work until they save up enough that they don’t need to rely on welfare. As the gap between rich and poor slims, less and less people will need to be on welfare at all. Money can then be put into creating more jobs. THEN the economy will work as you describe – people producing and buying, producing and buying.
Also, I didn’t know that it was so difficult to get on and stay on welfare programs. I do think that welfare programs need reform. Same with social security.
meredithancret
July 11, 2011
Grace: Your idealism is admirable, but idealism means nothing if tax law doesn’t back it up. $100,000 is where taxes go up and at $250,000. Neither of those amount are very much. In the grand scheme of things people in that middle range end up paying more taxes than those who make millions of dollars, because people like Bill Gates and Barack Obama (look at how much money his family has made, it’s been mostly public record for the past few years) have private accountants to find every loophole possible to pay as little in taxes as possible. That’s not illegal, it’s just time consuming and “middle class” (which I consider people in the $100,000-$250,000 range to be) don’t have the time and money to do that.
Raising the taxes will hurt the middle class more than the rich in the long run.
And lastly, this will come out sounding racist, but it isn’t. This is coming from a place of both sociological fact and personal experience, it is much harder for a white person to get on welfare than a minority. I was actually feeling very uncomfortable when I walked in to apply for healthcare. I felt out of place and felt like I was treated as an outsider and, yes, I feel that is because I was white. I also feel that the people handling my paperwork would have worked much harder on my case if I had been a minority. As it was I had to force the issue and when I gave up my father had to force the issue for me, because I felt helpless.
jackcurtis
July 11, 2011
Ok; there’s insufficient money for guns, Social Security, Medicare (and Obamacare, now) plus Medicaid…no argument.
First: Stop the military adventures. Any argument? None from me, anyway. But that’s not enough; we still lack money for (sorry) social spending as it is. And it’s gonna be worse; too many baby boomers retiring and too few working to pay for their retirement and health care,
So raise taxes? The more taken out of the private economy, the less that economy has to create wealth and the economy is already in trouble with increasing regulatory costs on top of declining demand. In recession, too many lack enough money; taking more is like the old doctors bleeding the patient, seems to me. Too many on food stamps, too many homes looking at foreclosure. Not much blood in a turnip! What’s my magic answer? Got none; we’re on a rough ride and both parties lie to us and duck responsibility.