Aa
Deficit reduction? Not without entitlement reform
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- As the fiscal cliff nears, the question remains whether policy makers will meaningfully address the biggest drivers of the national debt: Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.
Experts say it's unlikely they will ... at least not in the next few weeks. The two sides have vastly different views on health care, with Democrats looking to avoid benefit cuts and Republicans focused on limiting the federal government's liability.
The nation is staring into the fiscal cliff, which involves $7 trillion worth of spending cuts and tax increases over a decade. If no other action is taken, it will start to take effect in January, kicking off with $491 billion in deficit reduction in fiscal 2013, a large chunk of which will come from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Another $54 million in spending cuts are set to take place as a result of last year's debt-reduction deal.
Empowered by his re-election victory, Obama is centering the conversation on increasing taxes on the wealthy. House Republicans, who lost seats on November 6, have said they are willing to talk about raising revenue if it is accompanied by spending cuts and entitlement reform. House Speaker John Boehner called on Democrats Monday to come forward with proposals.
One main reason few in Washington are tackling entitlement reform is because it's tough, experts say.
Medicare and Social Security have long been the third rail of politics: No one wants to touch them since modifications often prompt angry outcries from voters, particularly the influential senior bloc.
"It is Medicare and Medicaid that are driving the spending side of the fiscal problem," said Steve Bell, economic policy director of the Bipartisan Policy Center. "The president has managed to make it a discussion about tax cuts on rich people."
SOURCE: http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/21/news/economy/deficit-reduction-entitlement/
Experts say it's unlikely they will ... at least not in the next few weeks. The two sides have vastly different views on health care, with Democrats looking to avoid benefit cuts and Republicans focused on limiting the federal government's liability.
The nation is staring into the fiscal cliff, which involves $7 trillion worth of spending cuts and tax increases over a decade. If no other action is taken, it will start to take effect in January, kicking off with $491 billion in deficit reduction in fiscal 2013, a large chunk of which will come from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Another $54 million in spending cuts are set to take place as a result of last year's debt-reduction deal.
Empowered by his re-election victory, Obama is centering the conversation on increasing taxes on the wealthy. House Republicans, who lost seats on November 6, have said they are willing to talk about raising revenue if it is accompanied by spending cuts and entitlement reform. House Speaker John Boehner called on Democrats Monday to come forward with proposals.
One main reason few in Washington are tackling entitlement reform is because it's tough, experts say.
Medicare and Social Security have long been the third rail of politics: No one wants to touch them since modifications often prompt angry outcries from voters, particularly the influential senior bloc.
"It is Medicare and Medicaid that are driving the spending side of the fiscal problem," said Steve Bell, economic policy director of the Bipartisan Policy Center. "The president has managed to make it a discussion about tax cuts on rich people."
SOURCE: http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/21/news/economy/deficit-reduction-entitlement/
"-- As the fiscal cliff nears, the question remains whether policy makers will meaningfully address the biggest drivers of the national debt: Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. "
Notice how they left out the war budget ?
The topic of cutting military spending isn't even mentioned.
Instead the country is divided arguing cutting programs or increasing taxes while the big boys buy more toys.
Homes not drones !
Notice how they left out the war budget ?
The topic of cutting military spending isn't even mentioned.
Instead the country is divided arguing cutting programs or increasing taxes while the big boys buy more toys.
Homes not drones !
Barb you always present things in sch a way that both sides of the room can appreciate your point, if not always agree. I think I really would vote for you.
My only real objection to some of the general posts regarding the economy is when there is an emphasis on the slackers and freeloaders. Not saying it is not a real problem, but it gets to be , in my opinion a bit much when they seem like the main reason we have a failing economy.
I agree cut the waste, make job training available make everyone accountable including those high income freeloaders.
:)
My only real objection to some of the general posts regarding the economy is when there is an emphasis on the slackers and freeloaders. Not saying it is not a real problem, but it gets to be , in my opinion a bit much when they seem like the main reason we have a failing economy.
I agree cut the waste, make job training available make everyone accountable including those high income freeloaders.
:)
"All able bodied people should be working to earn their keep; nobody is "entitled" to a free pass. I've heard people talking about having more kids, so they "qualify" for more government programs, yet people that are right at the poverty level, and could use a temporary hand, are falling through the cracks. "
I am in complete agreement with you on this point. It is true that welfare can take away the incentive to work and I prefer that money be put to use in job training or earned income credit for those that do work.
I know we are all talking about able bodied/minded people who have come to be dependent on the Government and institutions in such a way that they have no sense of their own worth and the value of the contributions that they can make to society.
This system can create and support that sort of powerless, purposelessness and it is in no ones interest to continue it.
How to change it it is hard part.
I do want to note that I have known unemployed people desperate to work and unable to find anything. So it is not entirely due to this dependency that people are not working. There are a number of reasons and some overlap.
I have mentioned that I live below poverty line and though I work about 12 hrs. a week, that simply feeds me. Nevertheless, with what little I have I am able to hire homeless people to clean out my car, help me close up shop at night and help me carry heavy items. They are thrilled to work for money or for whatever food I provide them. I don't think they are so different than anyone else.
teko, sm and Mrs P........ thanks for the vote of confidence. I think we all see that mostly what's needed is a bit of common sense and our Congress people to get off their high horses and work together.
Adgal -- that sounds like a really neat plan you have going there. We have a work requirement, here, too, but somehow, it seems that a lot of people manage to get around it. Not sure if you recall or not, but back in the summer, there was a lot of controversy, because President Obama offered waivers to the States so they could administer the welfare program more efficiently for their particular needs. Governor Romney accused the President of "removing the work requirement", which was not the case. Here's an article about that:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/
I'm not sure, exactly how it works, but I know there are a lot of people who manage to get around the requirement; I sometimes wonder if it's because there's lack of training and/or oversight for preparing people to work. This is just an example...........Take, for instance, a fork lift operator, who can't find work and has run out of unemployment benefits. He should be trained to do something else, rather than allowed to just sit on welfare (or unemployment, for that matter), indefinitely, or suppose he injures himself playing weekend football, which wouldn't qualify for workman's comp, so is no longer physically capable of maneuvering the fork lift, but is quite capable learning a different skill... Again, he should be retrained, rather than allowed to stay on welfare.
At any rate, when I drive down the street and see young men who look to be late 20's/early 30's out sitting on their porches, smoking or skate boarding down the sidewalks, when they should be earning a living, I know there is something horribly wrong with our system.
Adgal -- that sounds like a really neat plan you have going there. We have a work requirement, here, too, but somehow, it seems that a lot of people manage to get around it. Not sure if you recall or not, but back in the summer, there was a lot of controversy, because President Obama offered waivers to the States so they could administer the welfare program more efficiently for their particular needs. Governor Romney accused the President of "removing the work requirement", which was not the case. Here's an article about that:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/
I'm not sure, exactly how it works, but I know there are a lot of people who manage to get around the requirement; I sometimes wonder if it's because there's lack of training and/or oversight for preparing people to work. This is just an example...........Take, for instance, a fork lift operator, who can't find work and has run out of unemployment benefits. He should be trained to do something else, rather than allowed to just sit on welfare (or unemployment, for that matter), indefinitely, or suppose he injures himself playing weekend football, which wouldn't qualify for workman's comp, so is no longer physically capable of maneuvering the fork lift, but is quite capable learning a different skill... Again, he should be retrained, rather than allowed to stay on welfare.
At any rate, when I drive down the street and see young men who look to be late 20's/early 30's out sitting on their porches, smoking or skate boarding down the sidewalks, when they should be earning a living, I know there is something horribly wrong with our system.
We have something interesting going on in our Province on the whole issue of welfare.
It is no longer called welfare. It is now called Alberta Works. The employment situation in our city is excellent right now, so unless a Dr. signs that you are unable to work, you are expected to. You are essentially given X amount of time to stay on income support and find a job. They help you at Alberta Works - job placement, free practical training, etc. If you turn down a job that would pay you as much or more then you receive on income support (which covers the absolute bare minimum) they will cut you off. If you have small children, you are provided with daycare subsidy as well. They have essentially removed excuses, and are making it very difficult to not work. However, if the reasons are legitimate, ie: disability, health issues, etc. you can stay on it.
I LOVE this! It's not just a matter of cutting people off, they actually assist people in gaining the skills they need and working with companies for job placement to get people back to work. It makes it much more difficult to just sit on the system.
Just thought I would share what we are doing in our Province. There is still more reform required, but it's a step in the right direction.
It is no longer called welfare. It is now called Alberta Works. The employment situation in our city is excellent right now, so unless a Dr. signs that you are unable to work, you are expected to. You are essentially given X amount of time to stay on income support and find a job. They help you at Alberta Works - job placement, free practical training, etc. If you turn down a job that would pay you as much or more then you receive on income support (which covers the absolute bare minimum) they will cut you off. If you have small children, you are provided with daycare subsidy as well. They have essentially removed excuses, and are making it very difficult to not work. However, if the reasons are legitimate, ie: disability, health issues, etc. you can stay on it.
I LOVE this! It's not just a matter of cutting people off, they actually assist people in gaining the skills they need and working with companies for job placement to get people back to work. It makes it much more difficult to just sit on the system.
Just thought I would share what we are doing in our Province. There is still more reform required, but it's a step in the right direction.
We need to send Barb to Washington!!!! I vote for BARB!
WOW!..I agree with you 100%...Holy crap..What is going on?...lol
Oh I think you put a Huge dent in it! I think you are spot on.
Dang, teko -- are you telling me I actually reached across the aisle, which is what I'd hoped to do? We all see these things and some of us have the "knee jerk" reaction that "this isn't right...
Thanks for the suggestion, I might just send it to my Congress people, but judging from other things I've sent them, I wouldn't hope for a big response. Definitely, to the President, and John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell - did I forget someone?
Thanks for the suggestion, I might just send it to my Congress people, but judging from other things I've sent them, I wouldn't hope for a big response. Definitely, to the President, and John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell - did I forget someone?
HEAR HEAR! You GO Barb! Very well put! Absolutely! Now copy that and send it to the president and your state representatives! PLEASE! You speak for so many of us!
IMO - Congress has become a "do nothing" bunch of leaches who get outrageous wages/benefits and are no longer a benefit to the American people, because they don't even listen to us. *I* could go to Washington, DC and do as good as any of them (I'm, sometimes, good at turning a deaf ear) are doing and I'm not always even really bright :-)
I'm sure I'll get shot down for this, but I do think one of the benefits that should be cut (reduced/revamped) is the "earned income credit". I know people who have gotten back thousands of dollars worth of income tax refunds, just because they have a lot of kids (and they keep having kids to get more back), when they didn't work a single day in the year, earn, or pay in a single dollar in wages/taxes. I don't object to giving people back a portion of what they actually earned/paid, but why should anyone get back something they didn't earn/pay in. That's crazy!
I'm sure I'll get shot down for this, but I do think one of the benefits that should be cut (reduced/revamped) is the "earned income credit". I know people who have gotten back thousands of dollars worth of income tax refunds, just because they have a lot of kids (and they keep having kids to get more back), when they didn't work a single day in the year, earn, or pay in a single dollar in wages/taxes. I don't object to giving people back a portion of what they actually earned/paid, but why should anyone get back something they didn't earn/pay in. That's crazy!
Sorry, but the 2000 character limit is forcing me to do this in 2 posts
The very word "entitlement" tends to make my blood boil. The only people who are actually "entitled" to anything are those who paid into Social Security and Medicare, Veterans, those who are ill or disabled (mentally or physically) and children, too young to care for themselves.
Nobody is "entitled" to Food Stamps, housing subsidies, daycare subsidies, welfare payments, Medicaid or other programs, except the same groups listed above. Since everyone deserves adequate medical care, I'd take Medicaid out of that classification, but even that should have some limits.
All able bodied people should be working to earn their keep; nobody is "entitled" to a free pass. I've heard people talking about having more kids, so they "qualify" for more government programs, yet people that are right at the poverty level, and could use a temporary hand, are falling through the cracks.
We talk about cutting spending and raising taxes, both of which will be necessary to get us out of this mess; let's not forget to weed out the fraud and abuse, as well.
I really feel that we're going to see another 4 years of "nothing", simply because we have elections again in 2 years and those Senators and Representatives who will come up for re-election, then, stand to lose their jobs. They aren't going to want to do anything to jeopardize that - from that election, we go directly into the next Presidential campaign, with more Congress people up for election; it seems to have become a never ending stream of campaigning, and nobody wants to do anything for fear of not being re-elected. The only one we know won't be back is the President, unless he decides to declare a state of national emergency and impose martial law or something to remain in office. Unlikely.
The very word "entitlement" tends to make my blood boil. The only people who are actually "entitled" to anything are those who paid into Social Security and Medicare, Veterans, those who are ill or disabled (mentally or physically) and children, too young to care for themselves.
Nobody is "entitled" to Food Stamps, housing subsidies, daycare subsidies, welfare payments, Medicaid or other programs, except the same groups listed above. Since everyone deserves adequate medical care, I'd take Medicaid out of that classification, but even that should have some limits.
All able bodied people should be working to earn their keep; nobody is "entitled" to a free pass. I've heard people talking about having more kids, so they "qualify" for more government programs, yet people that are right at the poverty level, and could use a temporary hand, are falling through the cracks.
We talk about cutting spending and raising taxes, both of which will be necessary to get us out of this mess; let's not forget to weed out the fraud and abuse, as well.
I really feel that we're going to see another 4 years of "nothing", simply because we have elections again in 2 years and those Senators and Representatives who will come up for re-election, then, stand to lose their jobs. They aren't going to want to do anything to jeopardize that - from that election, we go directly into the next Presidential campaign, with more Congress people up for election; it seems to have become a never ending stream of campaigning, and nobody wants to do anything for fear of not being re-elected. The only one we know won't be back is the President, unless he decides to declare a state of national emergency and impose martial law or something to remain in office. Unlikely.
"One main reason few in Washington are tacking entitlement reform is because its tough"..... No $hit, Sherlock.... None of these people want to make this kind of call.
It starts with trying to figure out who is "entitled" and who is "not entitled". There needs to be narrow lines drawn in the sand with issues like this. Some people are just not going to qualify for every entitlement that runs down the turnpike..... Washington has no brass cajones.
With every stupid panel that Dc comes up with to address certain issues, we still end up with a lot of stalemate. Instead of leaving people "entitled" why aren't we doing something along the lines of "training" or "education" to get the "entitled" a job? Not everyone on entitlement is worthy of the cause.... there are able bodied, able minded people riding the government teat. We've got to start getting away from that.... Its things like this that helped us get where we are...
We've rewritten everything to a point where all of the rules are too convoluted. Sometimes, people are going to take it in the shorts... so to speak. And unfortunately, that is life. Change.....
It starts with trying to figure out who is "entitled" and who is "not entitled". There needs to be narrow lines drawn in the sand with issues like this. Some people are just not going to qualify for every entitlement that runs down the turnpike..... Washington has no brass cajones.
With every stupid panel that Dc comes up with to address certain issues, we still end up with a lot of stalemate. Instead of leaving people "entitled" why aren't we doing something along the lines of "training" or "education" to get the "entitled" a job? Not everyone on entitlement is worthy of the cause.... there are able bodied, able minded people riding the government teat. We've got to start getting away from that.... Its things like this that helped us get where we are...
We've rewritten everything to a point where all of the rules are too convoluted. Sometimes, people are going to take it in the shorts... so to speak. And unfortunately, that is life. Change.....
Key statement...
"House Republicans, who lost seats on November 6, have said they are willing to talk about raising revenue if it is accompanied by spending cuts and entitlement reform."
Give a little, get a little.
Give and Take.
Compromise.
Meet me in the middle.
See me half way.
What part of this are OUR politicians not understanding???
The Democrats policy is stupid all by itself, it just won't work. Raising taxes on the rich isn't going to get all of the job done.
The Republicans policy is stupid all by itself, it just won't work. Lowering spending across the board without a rise in revenue (taxes) isn't going to get the job done.
SO... MEET IN THE MIDDLE. COMPROMISE. GIVE AND TAKE. GIVE A LITTLE GET A LITTLE.
Raise taxes AND lower spending. Tada!
Look at that... I just solved the debt crisis right here at MH!!!
"House Republicans, who lost seats on November 6, have said they are willing to talk about raising revenue if it is accompanied by spending cuts and entitlement reform."
Give a little, get a little.
Give and Take.
Compromise.
Meet me in the middle.
See me half way.
What part of this are OUR politicians not understanding???
The Democrats policy is stupid all by itself, it just won't work. Raising taxes on the rich isn't going to get all of the job done.
The Republicans policy is stupid all by itself, it just won't work. Lowering spending across the board without a rise in revenue (taxes) isn't going to get the job done.
SO... MEET IN THE MIDDLE. COMPROMISE. GIVE AND TAKE. GIVE A LITTLE GET A LITTLE.
Raise taxes AND lower spending. Tada!
Look at that... I just solved the debt crisis right here at MH!!!
(cont'd)
Medicare, in particular, is a problem. The health insurance program for seniors is projected to eat up 3.7% of the economy in 2012 and 5.3% by 2030. By 2024, the portion of Medicare that funds hospital care will not be able to meet all its bills.
In his first term, Obama addressed the swift rise in Medicare costs by reducing $716 billion in payments to insurance companies participating in the Medicare Advantage program, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and other providers. It also created an independent board charged with keeping costs under control if they exceed a preset cap. The law specifies that benefits cannot be cut to reduce expenses.
Boehner, meanwhile, pointed Monday to the House budget plan, crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan, who unsuccessfully ran for vice president this year. Ryan would open Medicare to competition in the private industry, giving seniors vouchers to pay their premiums.
The two sides are equally far apart when it comes to dealing with Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. Under Obama's Affordable Care Act, the program was expanded to include all adults with incomes of up to 133% of the poverty line. (The Supreme Court in June allowed states to opt into the expansion.) Ryan, on the other hand, wants to turn it into a block grant to limit the federal government's liability.
Resolving the nation's thorny health care problem isn't likely to happen by January, experts said. But the two parties should at least commit themselves to tackling the issue in the coming year, said Joseph Minarik, director of research at the Committee for Economic Development.
"What we need is a credible agreement between Democrats and Republicans to address health care in 2013," Minarik said. But "this is not the best environment for doing complicated things."
Medicare, in particular, is a problem. The health insurance program for seniors is projected to eat up 3.7% of the economy in 2012 and 5.3% by 2030. By 2024, the portion of Medicare that funds hospital care will not be able to meet all its bills.
In his first term, Obama addressed the swift rise in Medicare costs by reducing $716 billion in payments to insurance companies participating in the Medicare Advantage program, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and other providers. It also created an independent board charged with keeping costs under control if they exceed a preset cap. The law specifies that benefits cannot be cut to reduce expenses.
Boehner, meanwhile, pointed Monday to the House budget plan, crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan, who unsuccessfully ran for vice president this year. Ryan would open Medicare to competition in the private industry, giving seniors vouchers to pay their premiums.
The two sides are equally far apart when it comes to dealing with Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. Under Obama's Affordable Care Act, the program was expanded to include all adults with incomes of up to 133% of the poverty line. (The Supreme Court in June allowed states to opt into the expansion.) Ryan, on the other hand, wants to turn it into a block grant to limit the federal government's liability.
Resolving the nation's thorny health care problem isn't likely to happen by January, experts said. But the two parties should at least commit themselves to tackling the issue in the coming year, said Joseph Minarik, director of research at the Committee for Economic Development.
"What we need is a credible agreement between Democrats and Republicans to address health care in 2013," Minarik said. But "this is not the best environment for doing complicated things."
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
