US spends too much on elderly, too little on kids

“We are eating our seed corn.”

Marian Wright Edelman, Children’s Defense Fund, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama started the adult conversation over debt and taxes last week — if only barely. In a forthright and feisty speech, Obama defended the traditional social safety net while also acknowledging the need to curb the growth of spending, especially on health care.

But he riled many Republicans by re-introducing an inconvenient truth: Taxes must be raised. The nation simply cannot pay its debts and sustain worthwhile federal programs without more revenue.

While that’s a generally accepted bit of grade-school math in much of the political realm, it has become heresy in the GOP, which has taken up residence in a parallel universe of fairy godmothers, unicorns and Easter bunnies.  In that universe, lowering taxes for the rich magically creates jobs, fills government coffers and spreads prosperity for all.

That’s bunk, of course. George H.W. Bush famously called it “voodoo economics.” Still, that notion — proved wrong as recently as the presidency of George W. Bush — has gained a certain power through frequent repetition.

So it fell to Obama to remind Americans of the Clinton years — when taxes were higher, the budget was balanced, the deficit falling and prosperity widespread. The balanced federal budget was squandered by Obama’s predecessor, who slashed taxes, spent recklessly and presided over a period of tepid economic growth.

Obama will need to repeat the facts that link higher taxes with increased prosperity time and again. And even he didn’t go far enough; the president ought propose raising taxes on the merely affluent, not just the rich.

Moreover, Obama has only started to nibble at health care spending in Medicare, a voracious federal program. He ought to be frank with the nation’s elderly: they are draining an exorbitant amount of the national treasury, taking up resources that ought to be going to the young.

Somehow, we’ve managed to create an upside-down social safety net that maroons far too many children while swaddling the elderly in a cocoon. How can the nation “Win the Future” if we spend 2.5 times as much on its old as the young? (If you count federal spending alone, the ratio is more like 7 to 1.)

I don’t mean to sound cavalier about the needs of the elderly, who tend to be sicker and have higher medical expenses. Obama was right to pledge to protect Medicare against the predations of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-), who wants to end it.

But an adult conversation — a truly adult conversation — would engage seniors and help them to understand the consequences of our current spending curve. In nations that suffer famine, we hear wrenching stories of starving parents who give the last scraps of food to their children. We’ve taken a starve-the-kids, feed-the-old approach, instead.

While too many children are stuck in bad schools and poor housing, while community clinics that deliver vaccinations and asthma medicine beg for money, while young adults skip college because they can’t afford it, the elderly were given a budget-busting prescription drug plan during the Bush administration. That makes little sense.

If resources are limited (and they are), the nation needs to make choices – some more painful than others. My brother, Kevin, a Boston physician who treats kidney disease, talks about the Medicare program that pays for dialysis for anyone with failing kidneys — including the terminally ill. Started in the 1970s to help adults still in the workforce, its fastest-growing population is now over 65, he said.  And it costs tens of billions a year.

“It may not be the best use of resources for the frail and infirm elderly, and it also forces many elderly patients to spend their last days in the hospital, rather than at home,” a more comfortable setting, Kevin told me.

Yet, many patients, even octogenarians who don’t expect to recover, find it difficult to turn down the treatment. “And physicians resist having a conversation with patients that recommends they forego dialysis because it’s an uncomfortable conversation to have. It’s easier just to recommend the treatment,” he said.

But those are exactly the adult conversations we ought to be having.

218 comments Add your comment

SmittyATL

April 15th, 2011
8:14 am

Cynthia is partially right. The US (all of us, collectively) spends too little on kids, and the GOVERNMENT spends too much on the elderly. FAMILIES should take better care of their kids and their elderly.

They cut hair, don't they?

April 15th, 2011
8:18 am

“Innopportunely, now that we’re facing High Noon, we’ve managed to festoon an upside-down social safety net that maroons far too many unspooned children while swaddling the elderly in a cocoon.”

I really love that sentence. Cynthia is an amazing writer.

Bob

April 15th, 2011
8:19 am

Headstart is a waste of money.

Peadawg

April 15th, 2011
8:20 am

“US spends too much on elderly, too little on kids”

I think the US spends too much on ALL entitlements, period…but good article nonetheless.

Good Grief

April 15th, 2011
8:21 am

Love it, CT. Absolutely love it. Obama, the great and powerful, will surely solve all our problems by throwing more money at them.

Seriously, I stopped reading at the unicorns comment. You used to be better than this CT. There once was a time when you could have reasoned debate over the things you wrote. Now, you drifted into an even more partisan mindset that you’ve taken reasoned debate off the table. Sad to see.

Kamchak's Gerbil

April 15th, 2011
8:21 am

Why should I pay for someone else’s food?

Bob

April 15th, 2011
8:21 am

In sum, this report finds that providing access to Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the social-emotional domain. However, the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole. For 3-year-olds, there are few sustained benefits, although access to the program may lead to improved parent-child relationships through 1st grade…

Stonethrower

April 15th, 2011
8:24 am

“Them that’s got shall get, them that’s not shall lose” God bless the child that’s got it’s own”!

Peadawg

April 15th, 2011
8:26 am

“Seriously, I stopped reading at the unicorns comment.”

Although it was a very childish statement on Cynthia’s part, it describes the GOP in Washington perfectly.

They cut hair, don't they?

April 15th, 2011
8:30 am

Ideologically, it’s difficult to pull the plug on the Schiavos out there. This is where religion and politics themselves are the issue. Some clashes are unavoidable.

Guy Incognito

April 15th, 2011
8:38 am

A new record, this marks the 2nd time in 4 months that I agree with at least 1/2 of your article, CT. As for me, when I become a burden on my wife, bring on the morphine drip, and let me drift off to Valhalla………………

jhf

April 15th, 2011
8:45 am

cindy talks about the clinton good times but forgets about the dot com bubble burst

cosby

April 15th, 2011
8:45 am

Ahh…more class war fare by CT and Obama..those damn wealthy should pay..Why is it the governments responsibility to take care of anyone…should not the families, church’s, charity organizations come into play..perhaps we should make the salvation Army illegal as it competes with the Federal government…Time for The USA to grow up..it is not big daddy Federal Government to support anyone…as for the tax code ..how about the FAIR TAX..that way the Fed’s cannot use the tax code to promote class war fare….more of the same from CT and Obama..big Brother will take care of you..bull hockey!!!

buck@gon

April 15th, 2011
8:47 am

“President Barack Obama started the adult conversation ….. ”

Cynthia,

Got to stop you right there. I think you are hyperbiased based on your lust for a ride on Airforce One while massaging HIS shoulders. You aren’t thinking clearly now, and with only two posts this week, I can’t find any evidence that you have for at least seven days.

This post you began isn’t even begun true, never has been, and I want you to end a very low-productivity, under-achieving (what, is this your SECOND post? Whoop de doo!) week with a post that doesn’t reek of caca del Toro.

How is this untrue? Leaders, and particularly Presidents offer specifics in “adult conversations” and they offer them to adults directly, not to hand-picked Democrat college students at elite institutions. Presidents get things done, they bring together when its crunch time; they don’t alienate and divide. They don’t hold the military, roads and bridges hostage by claiming outrageously that if not his plan, then, (to reverse a pun) no highway.

Please start your post over; this time, open with a declaration (if that’s the way you want to do it) that can be proven entirely untrue.

Dan

April 15th, 2011
8:47 am

Government does not spend too little on kids at all, they spend more than enough, they just spend it foolishly and with no monitoring. Lets not forget for every dollar you spend on the child that is just another dollar the dead beat moms and dads don’t have to pay, and they can then fund their other pecadillos

Paul H

April 15th, 2011
8:49 am

Wow I’m blown away. Simple grade school math. Raise taxes. All our problems will be fixed. Force people to pay even MORE taxes for their hard work. That’s what will stimulate the economy.

(Please note sarcasm)

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have a scheme for you......

April 15th, 2011
8:50 am

Enter your comments here

Realtalk

April 15th, 2011
8:50 am

Typical Dribble from CT….

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have a scheme for you......

April 15th, 2011
8:51 am

Please ask George Soros to give you some new and fresh mindless comments to spew in your next article….these are getting boring…

fascist gop(h)er

April 15th, 2011
8:52 am

If your not producing you’re a parasite to paraphrase the gop rational. Crank up the death panels and lay out the death traps. Greatest generation, due us all one more solid and off yourselves. Proof you really love your Country.

BehindEnemyLines

April 15th, 2011
8:52 am

I thought death panels were just a scare tactic used by that horrid GOP?

GA Buddy

April 15th, 2011
8:53 am

You state something like

“Obama was right to pledge to protect Medicare against the predations of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-), who wants to end it.”

Then end your article with

“But those are exactly the adult conversations we ought to be having.”

It’s easier to have an adult conversation when someone isn’t stating things with the sole purpose of scaring people. You may not agree with Ryan’s change to medicare by having the govt give the funds directly to the elderly so they can shop for insurance, but that is a change, it is not the end of coverage. At most, it’s the end of the way it’s working. But of course, saying it would be changed doesn’t rile up old people as much as saying the program wouldn’t exist anymore.

If you want an adult conversation, try to avoid the scare tactics used by both sides to hide behind instead of having an “adult” conversation.

Paul H

April 15th, 2011
8:53 am

It’s how the government allocates the money, not the amount they spend. Period. Our forefathers would be incensed at the taxes we pay already. They would literally think it was a joke.

And you want more. Unreal. Not just for the “rich” but for the “affluent.” So now we’re getting into middle class territory. Where does it end, Cynthia?

Good Grief

April 15th, 2011
8:53 am

Peadawg – I couldn’t agree more. Neither of the “big two” parties is grounded in reality. A responsible person stops spending money when they don’t have any to spend, which I suppose shows you how irresponsible our government is.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have a scheme for you......

April 15th, 2011
8:54 am

Answer to America’s problem. If you pay no taxes – then you do NOT vote in federal elections. If you don’t have a stake in the country ( monetarily speaking) then why should you be allowed to vote on what politicans should do with other peoples money? hmmmmmmmmm?

Paul H

April 15th, 2011
8:55 am

“a parallel universe of fairy godmothers, unicorns and Easter bunnies.”

And then you end the article talking about the need to have adult conversations.

Wow

April 15th, 2011
8:56 am

Why does CT hate seniors?

Straight Talk

April 15th, 2011
8:56 am

CT, how do you propose to pay for all the necessary and wonderful social programs when our government is bankrupts, no creditor in their right mind will loan us any more money and we can’t print any more worthless currency? I get it! Let’s get President Obama to fire up his teleprompter and make another class warfare speech.

Felix the cat

April 15th, 2011
8:58 am

Really Cynthia?? Take out the money for the elderly. Money which you failed to mention was put in their throughout their working life time. It was promised by former administrations and for many elderly its all they have. Even their children turn their back on them when it comes to helping their parents. If you have the opportunity to live that long, you will also pass through the same gates as the elderly and you too will have your hand out for what you believe you paid into and should get back. The fact is, you will receive something. Unfortunately as most readers know, you truly will not have earned it writing articles like this. As for the children, their parents can care for them or their parents can practice more effective birth control methods.

carlosgvv

April 15th, 2011
8:58 am

While I agree taxes need to be raised, there is a reason why so many Americans are against it. Once politicans get their hands on our tax money they spend it any way they wish in spite of what the money was intended for. Until this practice changes, few voters in either Party will go for any tax raise.

Rich

April 15th, 2011
8:59 am

As tax revenues raise the government spends rises at a greater rate. The right answer is less spending.

JB Mallory

April 15th, 2011
8:59 am

@cosby I am so tired of that kind of comment. The truth is that we are in the hole. At this point it doesn’t matter how we got here or whose fault it is – we have to get out. So how do we do that? Everyone has to chip in a little. People who receive services will have to receive less. People who pay taxes will have to pay a little more. AFTER we take care of the debt, then we can talk about reducing the size of government more and THEN reducing taxes – exactly in that order. I will have to pay a little more in taxes now. I’d rather do that than pay a helluva a lot later. And BTW – I did everything right, got a house I could afford, denied myself luxuries so I could build a nest egg, receive no gov’t benefits and pay the highest bracket. I wish people would just quit complaining, roll up their sleeves and do what needs to be done.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have a scheme for you......

April 15th, 2011
9:00 am

Answer to America’s problem.

If you pay no taxes – then you do NOT vote in federal elections. If you don’t have a stake in the country ( monetarily speaking) then why should you be allowed to vote on what politicans should do with other peoples money?

Bobby

April 15th, 2011
9:00 am

I’ll agree with Cynthia within limits concerning spending on children. But who told all these people who cannot afford children to have them in the first place? Look at the pregnancy rates in the black community of teenagers in school who think it’s cool to be pregnant. Where are those fathers at to help put those children in good homes and schools. We (I’m approaching elderly stage) did our part putting our children in schools and staying together as families – a mother, father (same-sex families are acceptable here) so that children had better opportunities than we did. So, I’m having to think how much I’ll buy the argument that we are spending too much on the elderly and not enough on children. Sex education and parental responsibility might help the children situation.

Good Grief

April 15th, 2011
9:01 am

carlosgvv – Right. It’s not that conservatives are against higher taxes per se. Some of us would gladly see our taxes a bit higher if the money were used for the proper purposes. But as I said to Peadawg earlier, we have an extremely irresponsible government (on both sides of the aisle) that says they’ll use the money for Purpose A, and once they get it, all them money goes to pet projects and vote buying schemes.

slobberknocker

April 15th, 2011
9:05 am

R.New

April 15th, 2011
9:06 am

Dan,

You said something then brother!

shaggy

April 15th, 2011
9:07 am

Yeah, I figured my post would evaporate. Not dirty, but against Cynthia’s politics….

Freedom

April 15th, 2011
9:08 am

WOW, really? The seniors who busted their humps for years and are now retired, and we spend too much on them???????

Wow, we could take a lesson from the Japanese. They HONOR their eldery. The COUNTRY takes care of them……

I personally, do not believe that anyone over the age of 70 should pay taxes anymore. They have paid their dues, it’s time to enjoy what’s left of life, without Uncle Sam taking his share.

ricardus

April 15th, 2011
9:09 am

Tucker pretends to care a great deal “for the children” but she supports abortion. I suppose she would just as soon gas the elderly.

Red

April 15th, 2011
9:10 am

Disagree. It’s easy to say this because you have one program, Medicare, to pin costs on. But what of the programs for children already? Look at the Department of Education. Look at half of property taxes going to schools. Look at education grants. Look at Pell Grants. Hope. Medicaid. WIC. School lunches. Endless other programs that do amount to something. It’s not like the children are deprived. Seniors have put into the system for years. They have worked most of their lives contributing to the system. Their taxes have gone in. And when they went in, government spending was not nearly what it is now. They did not demand even a quarter of what the younger generations feel it is their ‘right’ to have. Add to the fact that people like Cynthia who think healthcare is an entitlement and a right…well then give it to those who do not have the means to obtain it.

Why is CT demonizing seniors as money grabbing hoarders when they are the least of the age groups doing this? I do find it odd that CT makes a statement about the kids not getting enough but chooses to focus her thought on pulling the plug on the burdensome and costly “on death’s doorstep” types. Instead of actually telling us where the money should go in children’s programs, she used a sneaky tactic in then going off on euthanization. CT – you could have won over an audience with offering some solutions to better uses of money for say fostercare or orphans, adoption, etc. But implying we need to let the geezers sit in a running car in the garage? Wow.

Kamchak's Gerbil

April 15th, 2011
9:11 am

Right on the mark Jesse – why should people that pay no taxes have a say in elections – they would always vote to continue the freebies.

Maryj

April 15th, 2011
9:11 am

We spend too much money on the POOR children. On the lower income children…..you know, the ones who’s parents REFUSE to get a job, and mooch off of the government teet……

Meanwhile, us RESPONSIBLE parents, take care of our own. We take care of our families. Don’t need no stinkin government to take care of US……

Get the freaking government out of my life!!!!

fascist gop(h)er

April 15th, 2011
9:12 am

Lop off Florida (in the Winter to catch the maximum amount of snow-birds) and send it on it’s merry way. Aim toward the Gulf to soak up the oil. Two birds killed one stone.

BlahBlahBlah

April 15th, 2011
9:12 am

We spend too much on the elderly and too little on kids, yet Paul Ryan’s plan (which doesn’t touch anyone over 55) still gets vilified by the left.

R.New

April 15th, 2011
9:12 am

Cuts need to be made, but not if it will effect the elderly. It may be easy to toss out there when you’re not in the group that will suffer from such actions. I think they should consider slashing wellfare. They should at least have some type of benefit limits. I don’t understand how someone who has multiple kids they can’t afford be allowed to continue to increase the size of the family all while receiving government funds. Where’s the motivation to get out and get your own. The assistance should be just long enough for you to get over the hump, not create and manage a life style from it.

Hahaha!!!!

April 15th, 2011
9:13 am

Sarah Palin was exactly right. The kooks do want DEATH PANELS. Give grandma a pill for the pain the Messiah says.

Thanks for proving Palin right as usual CT

RGB

April 15th, 2011
9:15 am

“Obama was right to pledge to protect Medicare against the predations of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-), who wants to end it.”

It’s a sad way to start Friday morning telling a boldface untruth. “Predation” is defined as “the act or practice of plundering or marauding.”

Ryan’s budget increases spending on health care for elderly Americans every year via a premium support system such as the one Congress uses.

So much for marauding…..and truth-telling.

FOX NEWS LOVER

April 15th, 2011
9:15 am

We got to quit giving our tax money away to all these foreign countries and look after the people in the USA….While we continue to spend enormus amounts of money in other countries on people who burn our flag, we got people in the USA who got serious problems….Middle class has gotten tired of paying the way….We have made it easier to sit on the side and not work and live off the government…..

sim

April 15th, 2011
9:15 am

GE makes 15 billion and gets another 4.5 billion in handouts (from us) and pays nothing in corporate tax. Nothing. The rich pay less than they ever have. We spend 2 billion a week on wars started by Bush and his cronies to enrich themselves. And now we’re debating which entitlements are entitled? The poor, the elderly, children, teachers, policeman, firemen and all kinds of public servants have to pay the difference when the right wing squanders our treasure and spills our blood? Do I have that right? Yeah. I thought so. By the way, lower taxation for the rich does not translate into greater employment. Jobs grew under Clinton while there were huge losses under George W. How does that work exactly? Well, it doesn’t and remains one of the biggest lies told by the right, one that goes on unchallenged and unsupported by the facts–like most all of their assertions.

BlahBlahBlah

April 15th, 2011
9:16 am

And God forbid we try to raise the retirement age a couple of years to keep up with the reality of increasing life expectancy; the Democrats freak out at that idea and once again try to demonize Republicans who dare suggest such an idea!

Good Grief

April 15th, 2011
9:18 am

BlahBlahBlah – Look at what happened when France wanted to raise the retirement age by two years. The younger generations took to the streets in protest because it would make it harder for them to find a job.

Some People are stupid

April 15th, 2011
9:18 am

RGB-

I would just love to hear this answer, how do you increase spending by cutting money out of the program.

On a sidenote, the problem with the vouchers are that they only rise with the cost of inflation, but health care cost rise above inflation. Technically you are ending medicare. Medicare is essentially a government insurance….in Ryan’s plan it’s no longer an insurance but a subsidy…sort of like…food stamps, and section 8.

Barry Soetoro

April 15th, 2011
9:19 am

Hopefully YOU will not be adding to the problem,as you see it!

Daffynitions

April 15th, 2011
9:20 am

The whole key to this is, in Cynthia’s words, sustaining “worthwhile federal programs”. It all rests on the definition of “worthwhile”. Who decides this? In my opinion, the majority of all federal programs are not worthwhile in a time of lean and can, and should, be eliminated. End of Story.

James

April 15th, 2011
9:20 am

How many different ways can you say “Death Panel” without actually saying “Death Panel”??? Rationing, plain and simple, that’s what it comes down to when resources are limited. As has been suggested numerous times during the course of the health care debate, it must come down to deciding who will and who will not receive care. Sounds to me like Cynthia is for cutting services to the elderly or age-impaired. Just say it Cynthia, “Death Panel”!!!

Steven Q. Stanley

April 15th, 2011
9:25 am

When I was a kid may parents didn’t spend much on us.

Today every kid has 3 or 4 video game systems and a library of games. Maybe if parents spent a little less of their own money on kids we wouldn’t need government to spend so much.

Cynthia is dead on about old people though. Let these geezers care for themselves.

Lynn

April 15th, 2011
9:28 am

Walk into any hospital and you will notice it is full of the elderly receiving extremely expensive care for illnesses that would not be treated on an inpatient basis for any other population even accounting for the exact same diagnosis and potential mortality. Elderly patients who have a terminal diagnosis even at age 90 and beyond still seek aggressive chemotherapy and other treatment.

However, we are always willing to sacrifice the care of someone else’s grandmother. As our President should consider, his own grandmother had a very expensive hip replacement even as she faced a terminal illness. I will say that every other country will national health care does ration care particularly for the elderly. And in many cases, those we would not consider elderly at all. The difficult conversation don’t happen because the government has already decided what treatment will be offered.

Meathead

April 15th, 2011
9:31 am

Maryj
April 15th, 2011
9:11 am
We spend too much money on the POOR children.

Wow. Stooping to an all new low. Blaming the poor children. Unreal.

FOX NEWS LOVER

April 15th, 2011
9:32 am

When there is no logical explanation, blame it on George Bush…..Baloney, nobody gonna buy that anymore….Elections in 2012 will change this country….I have confidence that the American nation that I live in will not be fooled by what is going on in Washington now and will run them all off….Keep giving money to foreign governments who charge us $300 a barrell for oil while we have all kinds of oil reserves and refuse to drill for oil because of some 2.5 inch little animal…Environmentalist protect things like the snail darter, a small fish that held up the TVA project in Tennessee for years, but yet they see nothing wrong with taking a human life in an abortion….And when they put the Alaska pipeline up there, all the moose and bears were gonna be killed….These people must think Americans are stupid….If we don’t clean it up in 2012, I might have to agree that we are stupid if we go with these same people who continue to pass bills the American public has told them clearly that we do not want…People who vote for things that the American people do not want have to go, and go quickly, like 2012……Japan honors their older citizens, but all we get in the USA is to defund the medical knowhow to keep older citizens alive and to continue to pay taxes so that we can buy influence in some part of the 3rd world nations……Don’t like our president cowering down to the people who are gouging us everyday on oil and laughing all the way to the bank….If they hate you, no matter how much you bow to them or cower down, they still gonna put another 9/11 on you when they get the chance….Can we not figure that out????

lulu

April 15th, 2011
9:33 am

It never fails to amaze me that the people who are against abortion, birth control, and sex ed are the same ones who whine about the number of poor children, the high teen birth rate in low SES communities, and the money that goes to improve the lives of children who had nothing to do with their own conception and birth.

You’re probably also the same people who want every service imaginable that might possibly benefit YOU, but don’t want to pay any taxes on the off chance that – *gasp* – somebody else might see benefits as well.

And these are the people the politicians seem to cater to during election years. Complain about politicians all you want; they pander to what the masses want to hear. And until we’re willing to talk about actual solutions rather than fairy tales, we’re going to keep getting the same results that got us into this mess to begin with.

Wiie

April 15th, 2011
9:33 am

What a dishonest, self serving reading of history! Tucker shosw just how skewed and distorted her mind is.

Hankie Aron

April 15th, 2011
9:35 am

CT- Please answer this question. Why is it that you care for young children (as evidenced by this column calling for more spending) but if you can’t see or hear them in the mother’s womb they don’t exist?. How can you support abortion with a column like this? Please see yesterday’s column. Children are children whether 2 years old or 2 seconds old!. You are a complete hyprcrite.

Woody

April 15th, 2011
9:36 am

Referring to some of the comments here, it’s difficult for me to buy in to the idea that is is wrong, or rationally unjust, or logically incorrect, to collect a small amount from everyone to try to solve some of our widespread national problems. You should, for instance, pay for someone else’s food if that someone else is six years old and it’s the end of the month and parents have no money in the house to feed him or her. Especially if, eating in the morning helps the child behave well and learn well in school. Sorry, peanut gallery, Mom taught me it was right to share. Taxes and programs to support children in basic ways are an efficient way to do that.

FOX NEWS LOVER

April 15th, 2011
9:36 am

Steven Q. Stanley:
You gonna be an old geezer one day if you are lucky, and when they refuse you with medical help that might prolong your life, we’ll see what you have to say then….Guess some people value living a little more than you do…..

The list of hate grows

April 15th, 2011
9:36 am

So the farleft not only hates whites, blacks, hispanics, Jews, Christians, babies, freedom, capitalism and free will, we can now officially add the elderly to the list.

fascist gopher

April 15th, 2011
9:37 am

Seniors are parasites. Sucking on the government teet, like Ayn Rand in her dying days. Producing nothing, driving obnoxious 20-foot autos, and hogging all the tables at happy hour. Plus they smell funny. One caveat, they do seem to be able to still play a fast round of golf. It’s past time to crank up the democrat’s death panels and the republican’s death traps.

MountainMan

April 15th, 2011
9:38 am

It’s been proven time and again that for every dollar of revenue increase the federal gonvernment gets it spends $1.17. So it doesn’t matter how much you increase revenue, congress will spend more. The only way this will work is to get out Al Gore’s lockbox and put all the revenue increases in it and only fund deficit and debt reductions. Until that happens I don’t think the public will buy another tax increase to fund a drunken spending spree by congress.

Contractor

April 15th, 2011
9:38 am

Gracious alive Tucker. You sit there and admit your boy in office is spending way too much, because we don’t have the tax revenues to afford it. After admitting this, how can your only stance be to raise taxes? A 7th grader learning basic economics could answer this question, and it is to STOP spending and cut the useless spending. Of course, your class warfare opinion speaks for itself as you want a burger flipper to be worth as much as a heart surgeon. The rich aren’t rich because they spend more than they make, and the economic problems we are having are because too many irresponsible people were spending more than they had coming in. So why should the lifestyle that got all of us in this mess continue? It’s plain and simple that cutting is the only answer, not continuing to tax tax tax, because it will create less incentive to work (a little Macroeconomics for you). How do you and Barry expect us to afford these $30,000 hybrids to gain fuel independence when 30% of our check (30 cents of every dollar we make) is going to fund wasteful spending?

FOX NEWS LOVER

April 15th, 2011
9:40 am

Woody:
We have always helped the poor in this country, but why is this costing so much more now than it did in the 1980’s and 1990’s….Some people have chosen this as a lifestyle rather than trying to become educated and getting a good job….

jj

April 15th, 2011
9:41 am

In the Bush years tax revenues increased 6 out of 8 years. During his eight years in office total tax revenue increased by 36%, during the eight sainted Clinton years tax revenue icreased by 36%, so in total dollars Bush collectead a hell of a lot more tax revenue than Clinton. We don’t have a revenue problem we have a spending problem. The biggest increase in tax revenue during the Clinton years was his first, which was all passed by Bush Sr in his last year in office.
People have to stop asking the government to do everything for them, and the government has to stop bribing everyone for their vote.

Hankie Aron

April 15th, 2011
9:42 am

Yep the list goes on, the beat goes on.

williebkind

April 15th, 2011
9:43 am

Cynthis is for death panels, $5 a gallon gasoline, and higher taxes on the rich. OK, to solve this problem we need a new president. A person with integrity.

Troglodyke

April 15th, 2011
9:43 am

I have a lot of respect for the elderly, who have earned the right to relax in their waning years. They should receive what they have earned.

But one of the drains on the budget is indeed medicare, and this is partly because seniors are living longer. Medical science, by prolonging life, has created a situation in which people don’t die as soon as they used to. And if they get sick with a disease that would have naturally killed them 30 or 50 years ago, we prolong their lives.

Now, if we can cure the problem and give them several more productive years, I’m for it. But why prolong lives when there is no hope for recovery? Why Spend billions for dialysis and other maintenance (not to mention billions for vegetiative care) on people? I certainly think we should spend less on those who have smoked, or otherwise have made poor choices (yes, obesity counts here) that have now made them dependent on the government for medical help.

I know it isn’t a politically correct question. Is it a “sanctity of life” issue?

As for spending on children, I am torn. By subsidizing kids born to those who cannot care for them, we condone the practice. But it’s not the childrens’ fault. How do we take care of those already born and give them a chance at future success without rewarding the ne’er-do-wells who keep spitting them out because they want a plaything?

How do we show respect for our elders in a responsible way?

I reject the call for more taxes. Use the ones we pay already in a more responsible way. End the wars abroad and start taking fiscal responsibility here.

Greg

April 15th, 2011
9:44 am

And CT would be the first to scream we are killing our elderly if we were to cut any funding.

Janis

April 15th, 2011
9:46 am

We must put our elderly on an ice floe so that we can continue to fight wars all over the world.

TrishaDishaWarEagle

April 15th, 2011
9:46 am

Ah the clinton Glory days, when petfood.com had a higher market cap than Target..then the bubble burst..and all those debt projections evaporated..the convenient ommission of the left.

Martin the Calvinist

April 15th, 2011
9:46 am

Just think, a Democrat started Medicare in the first place, now they realize how expensive it is. How’s that great society working out for all of us.

fascist gopher

April 15th, 2011
9:47 am

Old people love Beck. After Fox kicked him to the curb he phoned the Mother Ship.When the Mother Ship arrives to pluck up Mr. B he could squeeze a couple million octogenarian’s onboard. Problem solved.

Martin the Calvinist

April 15th, 2011
9:49 am

Using IRS tax figures, you could raise the tax rate on all of those who made a 100,000 a year or more to a rate of 100% and you still couldn’t pay the overspending deficit created this year alone. Get a clue Cynthia, more taxes isn’t the answer.

Roger

April 15th, 2011
9:49 am

I have often wondered why you are so scared to go on FOX since they would actually challenge your sick, deranged point-of-view. Now I understand why you don’t. You clearly know you are wrong and may even be aware of just how evil you are.

At least you indirectly admit you are a coward

Some People are stupid

April 15th, 2011
9:50 am

Contractor-
You sit there and admit your boy in office is spending way too much, because we don’t have the tax revenues to afford it. After admitting this, how can your only stance be to raise taxes? A 7th grader learning basic economics could answer this question, and it is to STOP spending and cut the useless spending.

That made absolutely no sense. Take that back, it made half sense. A 7th grader would say cut expenses and raise additional revenue. If you lost your job today and found a job paying less, wouldn’t you cut back on expenses and think about getting a 2nd job.

And as far as the macroeconomics point. In economic theory there is this thing called equilibrium. If you exceed the tax equilibrium, then yes, that would be a disincentive to work…you know what, on second thought that still doesn’t work on a progressive tax scale. Simply because at every step in the tax bracket, you still net more than previous. On a sidenote, so when the top marginal rate was 39%, it seemed we grew a lot, so I would assume that isn’t the breaking point.

Why are people so averse to taxes??

TrishaDishaWarEagle

April 15th, 2011
9:50 am

If old people love watching beck, who the F loves reading CT? I have been asking that for years(coinciding with the huge circulation loses of the AJC) but the AJC keeps her around..

Steven Q. Stanley

April 15th, 2011
9:50 am

FOX NEWS LOVER

I have already told the wife to pull the plug.

I have no desire to have my family, or others, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep me alive for an extra decade of pissing myself and not remembering who anyone is.

Martin the Calvinist

April 15th, 2011
9:51 am

Besides, we shouldn’t even have SS, medicare, and medicaid in the first place. Every one of those entitlements should be eliminated! That’s our biggest problem!

Some People are stupid

April 15th, 2011
9:52 am

oh know…the dot.com burst and it’s 6 month recession..
oh the horror….can we please get over this dot.com bubble bursting thing. There was still economically perfect employment before, during, and after it burst. If anything it had an effect on market capitlization only.

Steven Q. Stanley

April 15th, 2011
9:53 am

A lot of our problems with all people on welfare, old and young, can be solved with more abortions. Every time we abort a welfare baby we save ourselves a lot of money.

Moderate Line

April 15th, 2011
9:54 am

But an adult conversation — a truly adult conversation — would engage seniors and help them to understand the consequences of our current spending curve.
++++
I agree whole heartily with your assessment. Except that it is not going to change with an adult conversation. How often in history do you see a group give up an entitlement? It just doesn’t happen. In the 2010 House race 21% of the voters are 65 and older. Also, Paul Ryan’s budget basically clevely maintains the present system for the current recipients and cuts it for future generations. Note people 65 and older voted 59 to 38 for Repub. Future generations will probably pay more into the system than they will receive in benefit.

The Dems are always playing racial and gender politics but the real problem currently from a conceptional standpoint is old vs young. We can pass laws to protect minorities and women but our democracy can’t pass laws which protect future generations.

fascist gopher

April 15th, 2011
9:54 am

Trisha,

I’m betting you have an “R” and an “L” written on your shoes.

TrishaDishaWarEagle

April 15th, 2011
9:55 am

@SPAS (appropriately)

You do understand what losing half the Dow valuation and 3/5 of the NASDAQ did to those rosey debt pay down 10 year projections ynthia spoke of, right?

jconservative

April 15th, 2011
9:56 am

Nice article Cynthia. But you left out of your list of sinners maybe the top sinner, Foreign Affairs.

To date we have spent over $1.6 trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, as of today, we do not have the slightest idea what we have in either country 5 years from today. Most guessing today is that Iraq will be a Radical Islamic Republic like its neighbor Iran and Afghanistan will still be a feudal state with several dozen power centers.

So we get little for our $1.6 trillion and growing debt on those two places.

Oh, and do I need to mention the 5000 dead American soldiers? We got all bent out of shape over 3000 dead on 9/11 but do not blink and eye over 5000 dead soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have a scheme for you......

April 15th, 2011
9:58 am

Answer to America’s problem. If you pay no taxes – then you do NOT vote in federal elections. If you don’t have a stake in the country ( monetarily speaking) then why should you be allowed to vote on what politicans should do with other peoples money?

RambleOn84

April 15th, 2011
9:59 am

The problem is not that we spend too much on the elderly. The problem is not that we don’t spend enough on kids.

The problem is that “we” spend too much, period. “We” equals the government, without the consent of the governed.

The problem is that the Democrats want to spend entirely too much on welfare programs. The problem is that the Republicans want to spend entirely too much on military.

But the biggest problem is that when it comes time that both sides realize we cannot afford to do both, and that they must compromise, they both give in: NOT to spend LESS on their respective favorite programs, but to spend MORE.

Now what sense does that make?

America has become like that guy in your neighborhood who you happen to know makes less money than you do, yet is always buying new cars, throwing big parties, etc. How does he do it, you ask? The answer is he is up to his eyeballs in debt.

And it’s just a matter of time until there’s a foreclosure sign up in his yard.

It was kind of fun while it lasted.

the obvious

April 15th, 2011
9:59 am

If black women would devlope a little class and stop reproducing like savages and stop becoming grandmothers of 4 by the age of 30 that would probably help tremendously

Jeff

April 15th, 2011
10:00 am

CT, you have zero credibility. I seem to recall an editorial you once wrote asking republicans what they would choose to “cut”. Looks like you have decided you can cut something.

Red

April 15th, 2011
10:02 am

Seniors contribute nothing??? Seriously? Some people are flat out stupid for making such ignorant assertions. Seniors gave 20 times more than all the morons saying this stupid statement combined. They contributed and took nothing in return. They did not live off of government programs like today’s generations do. They did not have fancy schools, super highways, mass transit, etc. Government was comparatively non-existent in their time than in ours. What they put in for retirement was based on a FDR lie. Seniors did not go around screaming they were entitled to social welfare programs, handouts, tax breaks, health care, education programs, etc. They fought WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. They built up this country out of a Depression. And some ignorant fools come on here saying they are a burden and drain us? Sucking on the government teat? They are merely asking for what FDR and LBJ promised them. Now the so-called compassionate liberals are here telling us to kill them off in some Nazi style “kill off the weak and burdensome in society” rant.

Kamchak's Gerbil

April 15th, 2011
10:03 am

Woody – I should not be made to pay for food for someone else – it is morally wrong.
If I want to give money to the needy then so be it.

Bubba

April 15th, 2011
10:03 am

quit giving tax money to welfare queens. simple solution-if you dont work, you dont eat. it is not my job to take care of other peoples kids.

Contractor

April 15th, 2011
10:04 am

Some People are stupid,

You basically agreed with exactly what I said. You don’t spend more than what you make. The government is doing that and so are irresponsible citizens who are overloading the system on us that are trying to live within our means. You post speaks of finding a second job, but it’s the people without even one job that are leaching off the rest of us and creating the initial problem.

As far as your economic theory, try reading a book. It clearly states that people lose the incentive to work when it just isn’t worth your time. Take a listen to the song Tax Man written by George Harrison. Just say he made a million dollars a show with the Beatles, yet the government took 70%, he doesn’t find it worth his time to even perform, therefor losing incentive to work, but if he only had to pay 30% taxes on that million, then he decides it is better to work because he will profit more. You are correct that in our tax system, the more you make, the more you pay, but increasing those numbers will create a non-working society. Hmmm, bust my butt 40 hours a week and pay 40-50% if not more in taxes, or sit on the couch and receive a check every week watching TV? Sounds like a pretty simple answer to me that most would take the couch route, because it is simply happening as we speak.

People aren’t negative towards paying taxes when they are going towards useful spending and towards programs that help society, but when they are raised for the benefit of things that people don’t want, then that’s where your problem comes from.

the dumb get dumber

April 15th, 2011
10:06 am

@lulu

Clearly you are confusing desiring others to take care of thier own, responsibilty and self-control with “whining about poor children.”

Please, grow up and when you do get an education

JD

April 15th, 2011
10:07 am

Yup, we used up all the old people to our advantage and now that they have no worth to the younger generations you red necks want to just throw them on a pile to rot like compost!!!!

Really last word

April 15th, 2011
10:07 am

If you combined what we pay for children (education, after school programs, lunch/breakfast programs, healthcare, parks for them to play in, on and on) to what the elderly get . . children aren’t that lacking (one must consider the parents of the children . . do they take care of them!!!). Children are generally more healthy than elderly . . . that’s like comparing a freshly picked apple with one that has been sitting on the kitchen counter for weeks!!!

Tryanon

April 15th, 2011
10:08 am

Cynthia Tucker – a Socialist’s attempt to be Ann Coulter. But at least a partial failure. Lots of Bite, but NO humor!

Martin the Calvinist

April 15th, 2011
10:08 am

Cynthia didn’t you say that Republicans were using scare tactics and lies when the term death panels was used during the Obama Care health care debate. Now you you advocating that we tell seniors that their health care is too expensive and that they ought to consider going ahead and dying as supposed to continue their life. If and when a person decides it’s time to go, it should be a personal decision, not some government mandated decree. Sounds to me you do think there ought to be rationing of care, especially to those who have lived a long time.

Dawg Gone

April 15th, 2011
10:08 am

Really lets let one “poor” elderly person get 1 cent less than they think they are “entitled” to and well there is Tucker’s next column..

Cynthia Tucker

April 15th, 2011
10:09 am

de-segregation was the beginning of the end.just speking the obvious

Contractor

April 15th, 2011
10:09 am

Red,

Thank you very much for voicing the best post I have read all day. My grandpa died this week, and he is exactly everything you posted there. He fought for this country in WWII and Korea. He never accepted or took a handout from anyone, except the paycheck he earned every week. He saved and lived frugally so he could afford his own medical problems when times got bad, and that’s exactly what he did, used his own money. Half these idiots on here only take and never give like his generation, and yet they think they have room to speak. If it wasn’t for these elderly people, these entitlement programs wouldn’t be as funded as they are that these suckasses are taking from.

I'm Wit Ya

April 15th, 2011
10:09 am

So – we should take better care of the children than the elderly because they will have more to contribute throughout their lives. I agree. We should also take better care of the rich than the poor because they have more to contribute in the way of creating jobs, etc. And – we should take better care of the smart than the dumbasses for the same reasons. I’m glad we agree.

dee

April 15th, 2011
10:10 am

I have no problem with elederly spending. Those elderly living now paid their dues and served their country. I do have a problem providing for able bodied people who won’t work and do nothing but have children to get more welfare.

keaton

April 15th, 2011
10:11 am

Apparently the AJC will hire any libtard right off the street if Tucker and Bookman have blogs.

Only requirements must be an IQ in the double digits and a burning hatred of America

Some People are stupid

April 15th, 2011
10:11 am

Trisha-

Actually I do. Look up the projections around the time the bubble burst. And compare them to actuals.

Paddy O

April 15th, 2011
10:12 am

the blubbering love affair with Obozo never ends. You can terminate 100% of fed grants, cut aircraft carriers in half, reduce R&D for future aircraft (F-16 would still dominate the sky, and that is a 30 year old plane), terminate 100% of foreign assistance/development funds, reduce the State Department by 30%, eliminate the Dept of Education & Energy; eliminate the most socialistic program in the US – the Earned Income Credit. YOU COULD raise revenue via import tariffs – a minimum tax of $1.00 per unit or 5% of the cost, plus enact a “wage equalization tariff” (80% of difference between labor cost in US & China/abroad. No one should pay more than 25% of their income to the federal government in taxes. Here is a new, fair income tax system:

Mandates:
1. All citizens over the age of 18 must pay a minimum of 2.5% of their gross income to the government to fund the operation of the government.
2. All income, regardless of source, must be treated equally (dividends, recipient of child support funds).

The Equation:
1. All adults over the age of 18 will be provided a standard deduction of $25,000. All Children under the age of 18 will have a standard deduction for the primary care giver of $8000.
2. All income of an individual under 18 shall be added into the income of the primary care giver taking the $8000 deduction.
3. All taxpayers shall receive a 10% exemption upon their income.
4. Once all deductions and exemptions are reduced from the gross income, you shall have the adjusted net income.
5. The adjusted net income shall be multiplied by .17; this mathematical exercise shall render the amount of income tax an individual shall owe to the Federal government for the operation of the federal government.
6. However, if the amount in #5 is less than 2.5% of the taxpayers gross income, then the taxpayer must pay the higher amount (If you earned $100,000 – you must pay at least $2500; if you are 19 and earn 15,000, you must pay at least $375).

This income tax system fulfills the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

real john

April 15th, 2011
10:13 am

OMG. How do you try to reason with someone so ignorant?? It would literally take me two pages of facts and actual real data to completely destroy this entire article. However, because of my first sentence, it still won’t matter to liberals.

I’ve said this before, and unfortunately, I will say this again. Within the next decade, I truly believe the US will be headed for another Civil War. The Libs in this country will spend the US into oblivion and not take any responsiblity whatsoever. The Repubs are at least admitting some mistakes and trying to make actual long term solutions. Obama and Pelosi and Reed have no intentions of cutting spending. How else would they get votes???

I hate to inform you libs, but I don’t care how much you raise taxes on the wealthy, it is still not even close enough to balance the budget and lower the deficits. The people actually paying taxes will only take so much. The libs will push this country to that limit and revolt will happen within the next decade.

ATLAS Shrugged starts today. Ever lib/democrat needs to go watch this.

Daniel C.

April 15th, 2011
10:13 am

Complaining about the spending curve sounds fine in theory, but what are you going to do in practice to correct it? Take the terminally ill off of dialysis? It seems the accusations of “death panels” were not completely off the mark.

williebkind

April 15th, 2011
10:13 am

Troglodyke

April 15th, 2011
9:43 am
I think we should spend less on those who have sex other than for reproduction. That makes as much sense as your comments about obesity and smoking.

I'm Wit Ya too

April 15th, 2011
10:14 am

As an intelligent, wealthy, young college graduate, I agree with ya, I’m Wit Ya. I will contribute inifnitely more to society than most of these stupid poor people any day.

RambleOn84

April 15th, 2011
10:16 am

“real john,”
The Republican budget was laughable as well. Better than Obama’s, but not much better.

Rand Paul was the only one who came up with a serious budget (one that would eliminate the deficit within five years), but nearly everyone ignored it.

Republicans and Democrats on the Hill are equally at fault in my eyes.

Neither side wants to give up their handouts.

JP

April 15th, 2011
10:17 am

I am pretty much a left-of-center Dem. Not totally enamored of Obama, and I don’t hate Repubs out of reflex. I think both Obama’s and Ryan’s proposals have merit as well as faults. Neither really address the growing costs of health care – just how to pay for it. And while I do think revenue/taxes need to be increased, I would like to see heavy cuts across the board before such increases are implemented.

At the end of the day, the voters will have to decide what is more important. It’s just too bad that only 40% of us vote. The Tea Party (while I disagree with a lot what they are about) shows us what an engaged and fired-up citizenry can do. Sorry to ramble.

tar and feathers party

April 15th, 2011
10:18 am

The elderly have paid in full for their benefits, unlike your ethnic group Ms Tucker. We paid our income, social security, and Medicare taxes all our working lives. What have the lazy Medicaid bennies ever paid for? The ER’s are full of young healthy unemployed black males seeking drugs, just go sit in the waiting room for one day and keep count. Fewer than 38% of adults work in Georgia, the rest sponge off the rest of us. I pay over two thousand two hundred dollars to fund the school system in my county, yet you want more? I say “NO MORE.”

I speak jive too

April 15th, 2011
10:18 am

Ever notice how gutless the leftist quacks truly are? The illegals claim to love Mexico. The blacks insist they be referred to as “African” Americans and the diehards tout how great Cuba and Venezuela are; yet not a one of them have the balls to pack up and move there.

Hypocritical cowards all!!!!

Douglas

April 15th, 2011
10:19 am

You say Bush spent recklessly but don’t mention the astronomical spending that took place and is continuing under Obama ……. why not?

Also, the Ryan plan lowers tax rates as you mention, but you don’t mention that it also reforms the tax code to get rid of or lower deductions so that even though the rates may be lower, the revenue is not.

What is wrong with letting the states decide how to structure medicare and medicaid? It has not worked too well with the federal government being in charge of those programs.

Easy E

April 15th, 2011
10:19 am

People look at me funny whenever I say this, but I think we spend far too much helping a seriously-ill 91-year old live to be 92. There should be more that just being alive; quality of life should factor into the equation as well.

Mr Right

April 15th, 2011
10:20 am

Obama will need to repeat the facts that link higher taxes with increased prosperity time and again. And even he didn’t go far enough; the president ought propose raising taxes on the merely affluent, not just the rich.

CT, please explain how taking peoples money increases prosperity. So if that is true why don’t we tax everyone 90% and then we could really prosper like they did in the old USSR!!

beaker

April 15th, 2011
10:20 am

I’m 70 and I want more; if you don’t give me more, I will vote for someome who will.

Dekalb taxpayer

April 15th, 2011
10:22 am

Of course we spend more on the elderly. How many prescription meds does the average kid take?

Derwood

April 15th, 2011
10:22 am

we spend to damn much on our elected officials.

Some People are stupid

April 15th, 2011
10:25 am

Contractor-

The “you don’t spend more than you make”, I agree wholeheartedly, except this economy is literally built on people spending more than they make. In the government’s situation, they do spend to much..but there is also a tremendous loss of revenue from a recession, so to sit here and say cut everything is being disingenuous when it’s a 2 sided problem. Revenues are historically 19-20% of GDP, now they are 14%.

On the economic point, so was there a non-working society in the 90’s with a higher tax rate and lower unemployment?
I agree with your point in principle, but I don’t believe a 3% increase is the point where they don’t want to work.

Last point, taxes are never gonna go to everything you want and not to those you don’t want. That’s why you try and vote for the best steward of money in an election.

RambleOn84

April 15th, 2011
10:26 am

“JP,”
You talk about the problem of rising healthcare costs…but do you know why they keep rising? There is one reason…a middleman. Or more accurately, multiple middlemen. Insurance companies, government agencies, etc.

Look into LASEK surgery. This is cutting-edge technology, and was very expensive when it was first introduced. Yet now, it costs a small fraction of what it did just ten years ago. Why, do you ask? It is not covered by insurance. You pay for it out of pocket, directly to the doctor.

On the other hand, how much do you pay for a routine check-up? How much did it cost ten years ago?

This is why it was so laughable when Obama’s wonderful solution to the “healthcare problem” was to make everyone buy health insurance.

RGB

April 15th, 2011
10:32 am

“I would just love to hear this answer, how do you increase spending by cutting money out of the program.”

That’s a question for President Obama who pledged to remove $500 billion from Medicare.

Ryan’s proposal would give seniors multiple choices from companies who would compete with each other to offer higher standards of care, better service, etc. The result would be a decrease in the medical inflation rate which would lessen the need to ration care. Reduced medical inflation benefits everyone. Additionally, Ryan’s measure would help remove Medicare as an issue—especially from the Democrats who routinely campaign on the falsehood that Republicans want old people to die, starve, etc. along with children and puppies.

As far as your moniker “Some people are stupid”, I suppose you feel better about yourself with this name. I’ll stand on my beliefs. With practical experience in the field along with undergraduate and graduate credentials in the health care and business fields, I don’t feel “stupid”.

One thing further: Do you not understand that reducing the growth of a program is not tantamount to “cutting money out of the program”?

A little self-examination would be in order, Stupid.

Good Grief

April 15th, 2011
10:32 am

Woody______April 15th, 2011_____9:36 am
Referring to some of the comments here, it’s difficult for me to buy in to the idea that is is wrong, or rationally unjust, or logically incorrect, to collect a small amount from everyone to try to solve some of our widespread national problems…Sorry, peanut gallery, Mom taught me it was right to share. Taxes and programs to support children in basic ways are an efficient way to do that.
_____

Woody, if I came to you and ordered you under penalty of law to give me a certain percentage of the money in your wallet, would you really consider that to be “sharing?” Yeah, sharing is good. Taxation is not sharing.

williebkind

April 15th, 2011
10:33 am

How about stop adding those who can work but claim to have disability to the system. I have neighbors who never paid into the soc sec. system but are drawing about $700 a month. I wonder how many hundreds of thousands are doing that.

Me

April 15th, 2011
10:33 am

Mr Right
April 15th, 2011
10:20 am

CT, please explain how taking peoples money increases prosperity. So if that is true why don’t we tax everyone 90% and then we could really prosper like they did in the old USSR!!

Easy, we collect more and paydown our debt. Or even just collect more to balance the budget as we did in the 90s with Clinton. Then the world markets view our economy as stronger, and up goes the value of the dollar. Then you can more easily afford those Chinese goods at Walmart and Target. The key here is to have a balanced budget. You do that by trimming spending and collecting more – then watch what happens to the dollar. Just like in the Clinton years….. Everyone needs to pay their share.

Ivan

April 15th, 2011
10:34 am

“The balanced federal budget was squandered by Obama’s predecessor, who slashed taxes, spent recklessly and presided over a period of tepid economic growth.”

Yet, Obama has extended those tax cuts, has also spent recklessly, and presided over a period of tepid economic growth. In addition to another conflict over seas. How is he any different?

Cynthia Rucker

April 15th, 2011
10:34 am

I do not in any way support the Neo-Con lie and fear mongering of these factious “death panels.” Completely absurd.

I just simply believe panels of death should not be ruled out.

BDUDLEY

April 15th, 2011
10:35 am

Say what? My dad’s generation (The Greatest Generation), created our economy. My generation (the 60’s and 70’s), literally, battled for social equality. Now you, and others, want to declare me excess baggage !!!!. WTF??

fascist gopher

April 15th, 2011
10:36 am

If old, christian geezers are so confident they’ll met jeebus in the afterlife, why wait. Refuse your welfare benefits and get your wrinkly arses up to the pearly gates. praise gawd.

williebkind

April 15th, 2011
10:36 am

Ivan

April 15th, 2011
10:34 am

The difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush was honest and had integrity. Obama is a typical lying weasel.

sport

April 15th, 2011
10:39 am

If you had a friend that was holding your wallet and he went out and spent all your money on foolish things, would you let him hold your wallet again?Heck no. So now that we’ve all read the stories of wastefull spending (military waste, fraud ridden social programs, corrupt govt. workers, $10000 toilets, bridges to nowhere, red tape, over-regulation, costly re-election promises) and ALL concieved with the BEST of intentions, now that we have all seen this,how can someone say, the answer to our problems is giving our wallets back to the friend who spends like an idiot? How can someone actualy propose, our govt should spend MORE money? RU out of your f’ing mind?

We have a ga-zillion dollars in debt, and your best answer is too spend more and take more from the citizens of this country? You can’t be serious. In what financial/economical world are you living in?

Are you that tied to your political party to follow whatever comes out of their mouth? I suggest you take a huge step back, and have just one original thought while you’re still on this earth.

williebkind

April 15th, 2011
10:39 am

“My generation (the 60’s and 70’s), literally, battled for social equality.”

Yes and gave us drugs and diseases.

RambleOn84

April 15th, 2011
10:40 am

Well, the AJC doesn’t trust my government website. Can’t blame em. But I posted a website run by our federal government.

Anyone who thinks our taxes aren’t high enough can go and make a donation to pay down the federal deficit any time they wish.

Don’t be a hypocrite; put your money where your mouth is!

fascist gopher

April 15th, 2011
10:40 am

sorry bdud,

If you ain’t producin’ your’e a parasite, according to neal boortz. Consult your teabag handbook for next steps.

Tucker Turns Republican?

April 15th, 2011
10:41 am

Jeez! Cynthia Tucker has turned into a Republican? Now she wants to cut Medicare benefits for the elderly and let thme die just like the liberals accuse Republicans of doing? Will wonders never cease!

Tommy

April 15th, 2011
10:41 am

Ivan
April 15th, 2011
10:34 am
Yet, Obama has extended those tax cuts, has also spent recklessly, and presided over a period of tepid economic growth. In addition to another conflict over seas. How is he any different?

I will take tepid economic growth over decline (the 2000’s) any day. And the reckless spending – keeping people employed, with jobs. Hell even Bush’s TARP plan worked, and may even make the government some money. And those tax cuts won’t be around for long.

Gm

April 15th, 2011
10:45 am

RGB: Are you crazy, give the Seniors 8,000 volchers to pay for 50,000 bill, this is the idiots of the Rep party thinking, lets toss our elders to the side, the people who helped build America, Tucker you are wrong on this, our Seniors derserve everthing they get.

Thanks President Obama for standing up for our Seniors and God help satan Rep party.

frank

April 15th, 2011
10:46 am

dont worry cynthia… your president is going to institute death panels to take care of that problem.

drmac

April 15th, 2011
10:47 am

As always, the decisions of a few affect hundreds of thousands of Americans. Until you/they (our wonderful politicos) have taken care of an elderly parent and a disabled person at the same time plus work full time….you have no idea what this entails. I still look back and sometimes do not know how I did it for so long. I do know I did the right things for the right reasons. One day all of us are going to need someone’s help as we continue the aging process. As a baby boomer, I am having conversations right now with friends so we can all live closer to one another and help take care of each other. It’s sad what the elderly and disabled go through in this country. It’s beyond sad how they are allowed to be treated and mistreated. The elderly in this country have paid for their services, or lack of, in most cases. This irritates me greatly……

kayaker 71

April 15th, 2011
10:47 am

CT,

Three years ago I experienced replacement of an aortic valve, among other things in a rather extensive open heart procedure. Failure to correct this and I would not be responding to this thread. This was done at age 70. This is expected to give me another 10yrs. How much is ten more years worth? Are your parents still alive? Would you want some bureaucrat making your parent’s medical decisions for them, essentially throwing them under bus because of their age. We pride ourselves in having an increased life expectancy that rivals most nations but under Bozocare, that number will certainly drop because of selective treatment. What are you suggesting, death panels? The same thing that you chided Sister Sarah about? What happens when you need an aortic valve at age 70,CT? You going to pass it up to save the children? I think not.

williebkind

April 15th, 2011
10:52 am

I guess we can tell the old folks that “dying is part of living”!

Contractor

April 15th, 2011
10:52 am

Some People are stupid,

I agree with your last point that taxes will never go towards everything you want, and in fact it isn’t even half of what we want at the moment I get the notion. There is so much spending going on for useless things, that no one wants to give another penny to the government because it is essentially wasted. Our tax dollars are going towards creating and increasing an already entitlement based generation and to where people think the government will bail them out every time, so they continue to be a parasite on society. These people aren’t learning any lessons by the government pulling more money out of working Americans pockets and extending the benefits to those who refuse to look for a job and those that have 12 kids. Illegals that come into this country and continue to have babies for free, get medical attention, not pay taxes, and continue to slide under the radar are another crackdown that needs to happen. If they weren’t trying to get away with something, then they wouldn’t be under the radar and continuing not to apply for citizenship. Spending is already out of control and out of our hands, so weathering the storm is the best option until it is under control and cuts can be made.

I don’t see ONLY a 3% increase in our tax rates. Obama and his administration want to stick it to the rich and more fortunate in order to cover for the society that doesn’t live within their means. Ever since the beginning of time there have the people with, and the people without, and no form of government will ever be able to change that, no matter how holy Tucker and others think they are. The fact that Obama’s Healthcare baby has hidden fees and funding, tax hikes, and other hidden agenda is a red flag to me that if he gets his way, it won’t only be 3% increases.

fascist gopher

April 15th, 2011
10:52 am

How ’bout internment camps for geezers? We could trap a bunch of snow-birds in the a.m at Denny’s. No one would be none the wiser. Problem solved.

Arch Dawg

April 15th, 2011
10:53 am

Your and Idiot (sic)

You fail to realize that all those greedy old people are the one’s who paid their taxes for their entire lives to be able to have those benefits. Now you want to simply take it away. I’m sure it doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that older generations are made up of less minorities than the younger generations.

Billy Ray Valentine

April 15th, 2011
10:54 am

Too much on the elderly?

How CT never grows old….

how about an article about spending too much on those who do not contribute their fair share to society?

CT thinks it’s time to put “The Greatest Generation” out to pasture.

t0otiE

April 15th, 2011
10:55 am

HaY!!!!

AlL yAlLs nEeD 2 sTO0p yApPiN aNd gEt bAk 2 w0rK!! H0w eLsE I gUnNa gEt mAh M0neIe!?!?!

Cynthia Tucker in 2008

April 15th, 2011
10:57 am

“We gonna have us a Bar-b-q, on Pennsylvania Avenue”

“stop spending money on all them old folks, give me and my kids more money. I can’t even gert my kids the new X-Box games. Old folks don’t even know what an X-box is”

kayaker 71

April 15th, 2011
10:57 am

willie,

I think you really believe the tripe that you continually post on threads like this. I do have the satisfaction that at some point in life, if you are fortunate, you will also be old. Then we will see how you like some government hack determining how long you will live. The old and the rich might be the enemy to you now, but at least you have the guarantee that in future years, you will attain one of them. I think I know which one it will be.

Cathy

April 15th, 2011
10:59 am

Wow Cynthia….why don’t we just take a page from Hitlers book? Just exterminate the elderly if they get sick. A persons life is NOT WORTHLESS just because they get old. Thinking like this really scares me!

Jack

April 15th, 2011
11:01 am

What we have here in this piece is a brilliant plan; so simple it should have been thought of long before now: starve-the-old and feed-the-kids. Simple and brilliant at the same time.

na

April 15th, 2011
11:01 am

It seems to be that CT always agrees with Obama on anything. I listened to him, all the way through his speech, I have always said he is a good talker, he just does not understand what he is talking about or how to take charge and fix anything. It seems to be in the socilalist movement that is taking place now it is all about stealing money from the people who earn it at gun point. It is never about looking at how the money is spent. No one can say the US government has ever spent money wisely but no one wants to do the dirty work and cut out the waste, cut out the hand outs that should not be, because if we did we could help the ones who need and deserve help and bypass the ones who have no intention of working as long as they can get free money. As Obama says he does not need the money, and Warren Buffet does not need the money, then if they are so eager to help they can donate their money and just note that neither of them or Bill Gates or any of the wealthiest people in this country are jumping at the chance to donate money to the US government as they know it would be wasted. When they do give they set up their own organizations to take care of things in a more finacially responsible fashion. The government has never handled money properly so why set up more things for them to waste our money.
We need to take our government back. We need to return to the home of the free and the land of the brave.

Truth

April 15th, 2011
11:02 am

Good Ariticle Cynthia! too bad it took you so long to get to the meat of the thing. The elderly lobby has become one of the most powerful, self serving groups in the US with no regard for the future. Problem is, they VOTE and it takes marbles to stand up to them.

zeke

April 15th, 2011
11:03 am

How convenient that you left wing nuts forget that A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS FORCED CLINTON TO HAVE LOWER DEFICIT AND BALANCE IN THE BUDGET! W. had no choice after September 11, 2001, but to spend as required to defeat terrorists intent on destroying the USA and indeed killing all Americans! The tax reductions actually kept us on a pretty even economic footing until 2006 and the democrat scourge in Congress! What is killing us is all the idealist create utopia programs and spending, not letting those who work keep more of their money! Programs like wic, adc, medicaid, food stamps, and others that are in effect no more than a redistribution of money from hard working people to those who in many many case refuse to work and live off other who pay taxes. If I, who has never earned $ 100 thousand per year decide to assist someone needing help financially, medically or otherwise, that is my choice to do, IT IS NOT THE CHOICE, OR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF GOVERNMENT TO FORCE ME TO FUND ANY AND ALL PROGRAMS AS THEY SEE FIT! IT IS CRIMINAL! IT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!

John Laszlo

April 15th, 2011
11:04 am

Why cannot we give serious consideration to the important issues that Ms. Tucker raises? Character attacks do not help us solve the fact that our country is bleeding to death in red ink. We have a system in which seniors can arrange to get a motorized wheelchair for any number of complaints when most of the time the really healthy choice would be getting up and down by themselves or with assistance from a family member or friend. We charge insurance or Medicare for all too expensive and worthless dietary supplements and proprietary medications which often are less effective than aspirin or placebo. Cutbacks in some of these programs are not only possible but desirable. We also need to address our failing schools-sometimes the problem is hunger, sometimes failed family care, sometimes weak schools. But the real issue is that our children are the future of this country and we older people (I am 80 and a doctor) need to put the brakes on our entitlement programs-we have had our chance.

wakes

April 15th, 2011
11:04 am

You have to love the Neo-Comms. They are the only people in the world that can percisely explain their love and desires for death panels without calling them such, and with a straight face scorn you and call you a “racist, homophobic bigot” for dare mentioning they are suggesting such a thing.

na

April 15th, 2011
11:05 am

Soylent Green
Just eat the old folks and get them out of the way.
they produced before but can not anymore.
I bet some of those old folks could outwork and out think the younger folks but they are not allowed to work as there are no jobs for them, Also a part of the brilliant Obama plan

BDUDLEY

April 15th, 2011
11:07 am

For 44 years I have paid the SS max. Fortunately, I can live without SS. I just want to know what happened with the money. I thought it was supposed to always be there.

RGB

April 15th, 2011
11:07 am

We focus too much of our attention on frivolous topics and should take Our President’s example of what really matters in this challenging time. So forget health care, jobs/the economy, and national security.

**Obama Disappointed With Lack of ‘Cool’ Phone in Oval Office**

“The Oval Office, I always thought I was going to have really cool phones and stuff,” he said during a small fundraising event at a Chicago restaurant. “I’m like, c’mon guys, I’m the president of the United States. Where’s the fancy buttons and stuff and the big screen comes up? It doesn’t happen.”

Billy Ray Valentine

April 15th, 2011
11:09 am

John Laszlo,

You might not want to admit that you’re 80 years old, CT might be knocking on your door with a silver hammer in order to eliminate another one of those pesky old people.

After all, if we save money by getting rid of old people who paid dues to society (ww2, korea, vietnam) we can hand out more money to people who have done nothing for society except stand in line to collect a free check from the government.

Reggie Hartwell

April 15th, 2011
11:11 am

Cynthia, I have read your column since I was in college. I am now 43 years old and for the first time, I am left speechless by your article. I don’t even know where to start. The government has spent hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars on education for our young and the war on poverty since the 1960’s. Public education has improved little, if any and we still have plenty of poor people. But I guess your solution would be to just spend MORE money. I have just one question for you, who will decide the “cut off” age when a person stops getting medical care? Is it 55, 60, 70 years old? Will you decide whose life is worth saving and whose isn’t. If the governmet wasn’t so inefficient and wasteful in almost everything it does, there would be plenty of money to go around for both the elderly and the young. The “adult” conversation that needs to be had needs to center around getting the government the hell out of the way, and let the free market play more of a role in health care. Aren’t you getting “up there” in age yourself? Let’s hope your ideas don’t get implemented before YOU get sick and are told, “sorry Cynthia” you’re too old, why don’t you just go home and die.”

Sin-thia Trucker

April 15th, 2011
11:11 am

U noe how it iz. We gotz to have r kool phones.

sport

April 15th, 2011
11:12 am

Do you know what the govt. should do with the elderly or th e kids? NOTHING. B/c whatever plan they devise it will not work out as expected and cost more than expected, if the govt. did nothing, at the end of the day, we’d all be better off.

I still don’t understand the trust that some of you put in your politicians. Everything that comes out of their mouths is basically copy for their re-election campaign. They do not want to solve our countries problems, they want to get re-elected. So as you blindly follow your favorite politician allbeit on the right or left, all you are doing in ensuring their re-election. What’s in it for you?

Eric

April 15th, 2011
11:12 am

So here is my take on this. Instead of supporting more and more children of parents who can’t support them themselves, spend money on birth control. Why is it the governments fault that an irresponsible parent can’t afford their child? Shouldn’t there be some sort of personal responsibility for a persons action in giving birth to a child? I understand it’s not the child’s fault, but why is it my fault? It’s my taxes that go to support this child.

The flip side is that the elderly, for the most part, have paid into this system their entire lives, and are now cashing in on those payments. Granted, Medicare is not fully funded by current contributions and we need to address that. But the elderly have paid for this entitlement program. It needs some tweeks to get it back on the right track, but ending it would be in affect taking away the investment the elderly have made through years of hard work.

In a perfect world we could support both the elderly and the children, but let’s face it, nobody wants increased taxes right now. So we have to make a reasonable choice based on the facts. And the fact is, no child has paid for the programs they will take part in. Additionally the parents of these children are typically on the lower end of the pay scale, so you know their tax dollars are not the ones supporting these entitlement programs. For the most part these irresponsible parents are getting tax breaks and credits that actually make them money. Many are getting more money back from the government at tax time than they paid into the system the entire year. So we are in affect rewarding irresponsible behavior.

I say spend the money on the people that contributed their entire life, they have more of a right to these funds. Let people be personally responsible for their own children, and send out the message that if you can’t support your child adequately, don’t have one…or five.

But I will say as a “republicrat,” my own little party that believes in walking right down the middle, I believe the only way we are going to make inroads to our budget deficit is by major spending cuts across the board coupled with tax increases. Anybody who looks at the numbers realizes spending cuts or additional taxes by themselves is never going to solve the problem. We need our politicians to be honest with us and be adult enough to step across the party lines and meet in the middle. Would that be popular…hell no…but it’s the ONLY thing that will get us out of this mess we are in.

Billy Ray Valentine

April 15th, 2011
11:13 am

Reggie says it best, fianlly an idea I can agree with….

“sorry Cynthia” you’re too old, why don’t you just go home and die.”

Kamchak's Gerbil

April 15th, 2011
11:13 am

Gm – are you retarded?

danny

April 15th, 2011
11:15 am

Funny how George Bush is still Tucker’s favorite whipping boy!

Scott

April 15th, 2011
11:18 am

In fairness, CT and Odumba are not advocating killing old people. They just want everyone to stop wasting money on them and to put them out in the back yard so they can die in peace.

HUGE difference.

Not Blind

April 15th, 2011
11:20 am

We spend too much on illegal aliens, too much on foreign aid, too much on corporate wellfare, too much on foolish entitlements.

Belfish Sastards

April 15th, 2011
11:20 am

In my family, we take care of our own elderly – grandparents died in their own bedroom in the ’90’s – visiting nurse came for awhile when we needed help. We also take care of our own children – read to them, teach them, feed them, etc. We don’t need no stinkin’ government to help with this – families need to buckle down and do this themselves. If you have a bluetooth in your ear, a 50″ TV on the wall, a GPS on your dashboard, and a receipt in your pocket from the $100 meal you had last night, and you are complaining that the government isn’t helping you and your family enough, you need to re-think your life, bud.

Some People are stupid

April 15th, 2011
11:21 am

Contractor-

You seem to have this notion that everyone on assistance is doing it on purpose. How many people do you think are refusing to look for a job. Seriously, the unemployment max in GA is 355 with the additonal funds, to get that you had to make at least 40k in the prior 12 months. SO you believe someone who was making 40k or more is fine making 18k. So out of the millions of people who lost there job, you believe the majority of them are sitting at home doing nothing. So the fact that there is a 5 to 1 job applicant ratio means nothing.Come on man. You truly can’t believe that.
And you’re right, just because someone has a bunch of kids, they shouldn’t get unlimited support, and they don’t welfare has a work requirement and a 5 year window(Welfare Reform Act), but on the inverse, what do you want the kids to do, starve..
Illegals receive free medical care the same way Americans can receive free medical care, ti;s called being poor. As far as taxes, they may not pay all the taxes but they do pay some. They pay sales tax everytime they purchase a good,if the rent, they indirectly pay property taxes. They don’t pay income tax and they don’t pay SSI or Medicare, but then they aren’t entitled to any of those so they receive no benefit.

And the man has said” I want to go back to the Clinton Tax Rates”. So yes, we are talking about 3%.

Obama and his administration want to stick it to the rich and more fortunate in order to cover for the society that doesn’t live within their means..

HUH??? By spending in education and high speed rails…how does that even relate to people and their means. Even if he said he wanted to raise taxes to increase welfare…they aren’t living above their means…they have no means.

There are no hidden fees in the Obamacare bill. Everything was laid out. What fees are hidden. In fact, how do you hide fees in a bill anyway.

BeeJay

April 15th, 2011
11:21 am

Title should be “US spends too much” period. On anything. On anybody. US spends money it doesn’t have. And doesn’t care. US is in outrageous debt to China and racks up more every day.

Raising taxes is the Democratic answer to everything. It is NOT the correct answer. Only ignorance, stupidity, or determination not to admit somebody besides Democrats might be right keep people like Ms Tucker from either (1) admitting the truth or (2) learning the facts.

National economics is a LOT more than “grade-school math.” Liberals need to grow up past grade school and understand complicated and realistic economics. They need to understand capitalism unless, of course, they are not interested in capitalism (hmmm….).

If I thought that receiving more money would help our idiotic government pay our debts, my thinking would go further, but they are NOT interested in paying our debts. They are interested only in spending more money. THEY NEED TO STOP SPENDING MONEY. Our largest expenditures are entitlements – welfare in all its various forms. Entitlements are NOT policed as they should be and are WAY out of hand.

I’m sick to death of this woman fawning all over Obama. It’s bad enough that HE thinks he’s god.

P.S. His speech is not “adult” nor is it informative other than to tell us he has all the answers, as usual. LOL. No details.

Not Blind

April 15th, 2011
11:22 am

I better add that providing for the needy elderly and disabled are NOT foolish entitlements. The entitlements for healthy poor are foolish but are so entrenched that I can’t see any way to reform them.

David

April 15th, 2011
11:25 am

First of all, claiming to be the “adult” in the conversation is a sure sign you’re losing an argument. Shame on you for trying to legitimation the honest attempts by conservatives to actually restrict the size of government. You may disagree, but it’s a legitimate, reasoned, and *ahem* adult position, worthy of honest debate.

As far as taxes go, if Reaganomics is voodoo economics then please find me a witch doctor asap. Adults know that the real voodoo is in the assumption that increasing tax *rates* increases tax *revenues*. It’s not child-like math, it’s sophisticated economics and psychology. It’s been proven time and again. Remember that awful tax-cutter Ronald Reagan? Tax revenues *doubled* from the time he was inaugurated until he left office. Yet the top tax rate was more than halved. How can this be?

Adults — *real* adults, as a certain columnist would assert — know that the key figure is tax revenues as a percent of GDP. And that has remained very stable despite the best efforts of progressives to increase the government’s share of the pie.

Conservatives, on the other hand, aren’t interested in getting bigger slices, because that’s a zero sum game that inevitably breeds resentment and mistrust between citizens. Conservatives want to make bigger pies. If the economy grows 20%, then government revenues will increase accordingly. That’s why lower tax rates work. They provide the real seed corn — capital — that allows businesses to invest, expand, hire, etc. that in turn grows the economy. Bigger economy = bigger revenues.

Lastly, I’ll note the false base assumption: that it’s the federal government’s job to spend on the elderly and children. I’ve yet to see the argument for why it makes sense for me to send money to Washington to pay a bureaucrat to find and support someone in my own community who needs help. It’s economically inefficient, it breaks down the social compact between the classes, and undermines our values of independence and liberty.

kayaker 71

April 15th, 2011
11:26 am

CT,

The leading cause of death in black males between the ages of 18 and 35 is violent homicide, usually perpetrated by someone of their own race. There is a 70% out of wedlock birth rate in the black community with no father in the home. More abortions are performed on black woman than any other segment of our society, yet they represent the lowest percentage of the population as a group. We spend billions each year trying to bring make this segment of our society productive, responsible citizens. Who is destroying the children, CT? It certainly isn’t some evil white person with a grudge against blacks. We don’t need to do a thing. All we need to do is to stand by and watch them destroy themselves…… at taxpayer expense. And you think that this is going to be cured by killing off a bunch of old people so all of that money can be spent to continue making the same mistakes that we have made since the mid 60s? Reminds one of a circular firing squad.

Billy Ray Valentine

April 15th, 2011
11:27 am

CT, (not that she’s actually going to respond)

What other programs would you suggest we cut spending?

What programs would you like to see us increase spending for?

fascist gopher

April 15th, 2011
11:28 am

Ecclesiastes 3:1-4 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a TIME TO DIE; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

Hurry up old-farts, we gotta balance the budget.

Independent

April 15th, 2011
11:37 am

I don’t think that we spend TOO MUCH on the elderly. Remember, Social Security and Medicare are insurance programs into which the elderly have been paying all their lives. We do need to increase taxes – start by increasing Medicare taxes to make Medicare self-sufficient ( it is horribly in the red now). Also, while I think the rich need to pay more taxes (it was a dumb idea to give the tax breaks in the past when we had deficit spending), I also think we should establish a minimum income tax of 5% that all people should pay. This should be deducted from your paycheck and not subject to any refund. Also, do away with the refundable part of the EITC – that is nothing more than a welfare handout in disguise. More kids = higher EITC. Spread the pain arount to everyone and that makes it more fair. Forget the voodoo economics; there should be no tax decreases until the debt is paid off.

Then you need to get serious about spending cuts – again, spread the pain around and make it fair.

catlady

April 15th, 2011
11:39 am

Kids have someone who should be taking care of them–their parents. While the elderly should have someone taking care of them, many do not (their kids are busy taking care of the grandchildren) and are, perhaps, more in need of someone to help them. Of course, the elderly presumably have worked and have some assets.

I think there is too little expected and required of the families of folks who need help. I don’t think abandoning granny to the nursing home to have taxpayers foot the bill is the correct answer.

Sometimes maybe the safety net is strung a little too tightly and too far from the ground.

(Of course, I don’t think widows/widowers should be allowed to draw off their deceased mate’s SS, either. In this day and age, all folks should earn their own way onto SS)

Billy Ray Valentine

April 15th, 2011
11:39 am

Facist gopher….I thought that was a Byrds song from Forrest Gump?

I was wrong again!

AngryRedMarsWoman

April 15th, 2011
11:39 am

“It may be easy to toss out there when you’re not in the group that will suffer from such actions.”

And that is what it all boils down to. Cut – but not programs I use. Tax – but not my money. As the members of the political class sit on their gilded thrones and laugh watching us tear one another apart while they steal all they can and hand out meager scraps to appease the masses – exactly as they have planned.

Independent

April 15th, 2011
11:42 am

Eric @ 11:12 am

You are very correct.

catlady

April 15th, 2011
11:43 am

Anyone ever calculated how long it takes to “draw” the amount you have put in to SS or Medicare (assuming typical health)? I think the short length of time would surprise you!

buck@gon

April 15th, 2011
11:45 am

BehindEnemyLines 8:52 am
I thought death panels were just a scare tactic used by that horrid GOP?

TREMENDOUS OBSERVATION!!!! Well done.

Unfortunately, Americans are behind enemy lines when reading the ajc, and they are in foreign ground too, it would seem. Most Americans work far harder than the very civil but absent C. Tucker.

Billy Ray Valentine

April 15th, 2011
11:46 am

AngryRedMarsWoman – “Tax – but not my money”

So would you be ok with EVERYONE paying a 20% flat income tax?

That way everyone is taxed at an equal rate for the money they earn.

Buster Collins

April 15th, 2011
11:47 am

Your comments are stupefying Ms. Tucker. First, you talk about the President engaging in an “adult conversation?” Really? Did you here his comments at his private gathering last night in Chicago? Go listen. Clearly he’s demonstrated, like he did in 2008 when he talked about rural folks “clinging” to their guns and religion, that’s he’s an arrogant SOB.

And it’s been amateur hour in the White House since he arrived. He had that dolt of a press secretary Gibbs who couldn’t talk his way out of a sack trying to sell his message. A large part of this country rose up against him during the health care debate, that vilified Tea Party, whose immediate concern was over spending, freedom and the national debt. (Boy, oh, that’s right, according to you, we are largely racists).

Obviously there is no comparison between the Clinton years and the Bush years. Clinton prospered from fortunate circumstances that he did not create, and signed a repeal that opened the door for anybody and his Uncle Joe to loan money in the mortgage industry. Well that took about a decade to backfire, and Bush had to deal with it, bailing out those who shouldn’t have been loaning money in the first place. And then there’s 9/11/01. If it had been 9/11/93, then you’d have seen another Clinton debacle.

Finally, to you realize what you are saying when you write? If tough choices are to be made, as you suggest, then why are we spending so much on the elderly in the last three years of their lives, the most expensive ones when it comes to health care?
If you are suggesting we have an “adult” conversation on this, then, people will act in their own self interest. You think people are just going to be encouraged to let themselves die? No, but money is tight and your form of government will step in. And the result of that is—death panels. And you make Sarah Palin right along.

You are ignorant. You are not thoughtful. You are not reasonable. You sole purpose is to lobbed grenades at the other side. You too are incapable of having an adult conversation.

Not at the Trough

April 15th, 2011
11:48 am

What makes me sick is that, as a responsible person, I have saved for my retirement (no pensions or healthcare plans for this one), and have just enough to live on for my life expectancy. Now I hear that this President will cut my social security because I have saved and am therefore “fortunate” or “wealthy”. I would like to get him alone in a room.

Independent

April 15th, 2011
11:50 am

If you want to look at things to cut, look at Medicaid spending on young people having babies. Pregnancy account for a lot of Medicaid spending; this is a CHOICE and there is nothing saying that normal childbirth has to be done in a hospital. Let these women have their babies in little (soundproof) rooms just outside the hospital. No drugs, just the way nature intended. If there is a medical emergency, the hospital is right there. Otherwise, cheap and easy.

kayaker 71

April 15th, 2011
11:51 am

So if you eliminate SS benefits from those who make over a certain amount/yr, what do you do with the money that they have already contributed? Most people who attain wealth do it gradually over a period of time. Why penalize excellence and reward mediocrity? I am tired of being responsible for the bad choices others make. And I am going to be expected to give up a certain portion of my life to continue to support these bad choices?

Mr Right

April 15th, 2011
11:55 am

Me

April 15th, 2011
10:33 am

Mr Right
April 15th, 2011
10:20 am

CT, please explain how taking peoples money increases prosperity. So if that is true why don’t we tax everyone 90% and then we could really prosper like they did in the old USSR!!

Easy, we collect more and paydown our debt. Or even just collect more to balance the budget as we did in the 90s with Clinton. Then the world markets view our economy as stronger, and up goes the value of the dollar. Then you can more easily afford those Chinese goods at Walmart and Target. The key here is to have a balanced budget. You do that by trimming spending and collecting more – then watch what happens to the dollar. Just like in the Clinton years….. Everyone needs to pay their share

The top 5% pay 58% of taxes paid so it looks like they are paying their share so it must be the rest that are not! You could tax the you know what out of the rich and it still would still only put a dent in the deficit so taxing more is NOT the answer. We have a spending problem not a problem of not taxing enough!

Buster Collins

April 15th, 2011
11:58 am

Oh, lest we forget; children didn’t ask to be born, isn’t that right, Cynthia? So why bother?

Mr Right

April 15th, 2011
12:00 pm

CT in favor of death panels? Hmmm- Wasn’t that what Sara Palin said would happen?

Billy Ray Valentine

April 15th, 2011
12:02 pm

children didn’t ask to be born, but these old people aren’t asking to die.

I can see the headlines now…….

Mother of 6 kills her 75 year old mother because her baby needed food.

buck@gon

April 15th, 2011
12:03 pm

Cynthia,

Upon review of this whole blog and the overwhelming number of CIVIL AND COURTEOUS disagreements with you, and given the fact that you have not once, as an adult or otherwise conversed or responded to reasonable criticism, and given the fact that you have written only two blogs this week, and given the fact that this is supposed to be your job; I’m wondering if it isn’t time for you to go somewhere else where you will feel more compelled to engage in your public responsibility as the editorial editor of the only newspaper in the Metro Atlanta area.

Is it that you so disrespect us, your fellow citizens, or is it that you have nothing left in your rhetorical bag of tricks to sell policies that most here will tell you have already failed? Is “holding an adult conversation” like we all suspect, just going along with whatever you or Obama says? Why not go somewhere where you aren’t creating “kleesay” “conversations”, and where your blogging friends will not be censored electronically from writing “kleeshay” about your own writing? Maybe it’s upper management, maybe it’s you, but everyone has got to admit, your work here is not what it used to be. You’ve made lots of money doing this for a good long while now, and you still have your Pullitzer….

Why not get a job with the Obama campaign for 2012? You’ve certainly served a long time here in Atlanta. Leave now while–like Eric Holder said, the man you called a “patriot”— you can still help “your people”.

I’m going to send my concerns along to upper management and to the publisher in hopes of expediting this process for you.

Sinerely,

Buck

Contractor

April 15th, 2011
12:14 pm

Some People are stupid,

The fact that you state illegals don’t pay every tax we have to pay is a crime. Them being illegal is a crime. I don’t care if they are poor or not, it does not entitle them to free healthcare in this country that myself, you, and everyone else is paying towards. I am not wealthy, I’m 27 with a wife and a kid who are both a year or two out of college, and face the same challenges as everyone else. I don’t consider myself poor, but I make barely enough to pay for my bills at this moment with no room for error. and you know what, I paid for my kid to be born, I paid for her to go to the emergency room at two days old, I paid, even though I am considered poor by the numbers. They get the benefit of having babies for free, allowing them immunity in this country, and yet they don’t pay into it, your words. Their sales tax on food doesn’t amount to what they cost us, rent doesn’t amount to education cost that they add up, so they do not come even close to holding up their end of the bargain. Why can’t they file for citizenship and that be the end of it?

I would never want a child to starve, and my point doesn’t express that, but there needs to be a reform in this country that puts more responsibility on parents to not have kids that would starve or be a burden on the rest of society.

As far as the unemployment money, you are correct that $350 a week doesn’t add up to their $75,000 salary before, but people also have to lower their expectations and take that $50,000 job instead and cut back on all of the things that cost them before if they can’t continue to live on $50,000 a year. All of my points fall on responsibility of the citizens of this country. People have lost that, because the government has warmed them up to the idea of always taking care of their problems.

bout time

April 15th, 2011
12:30 pm

So the kooks are finally admitting to wanting death panels? I knew it was just a matter if time.

willie lynch

April 15th, 2011
12:42 pm

I’ve alway’s found the term “end of life care” quite puzzling.

willie lynch

April 15th, 2011
12:47 pm

Contractor

April 15th, 2011
12:14 pm

I agree, people should have to accept the fact that they will have to lower their expectations. That’s why the rich (who can afford it) should pay more taxes. I’m sure hey can afford to live off of 1 million plus they just need to cut back on the things they were doing before. It’s great when we can agree.

stands for decibels

April 15th, 2011
12:49 pm

Haven’t been here for awhile… wonder whassup…

bluetooth in your ear, a 50″ TV on the wall, a GPS on your dashboard, and a receipt in your pocket from the $100 meal you had last night

yep. About what I expected.

confused

April 15th, 2011
12:50 pm

I cannot decide which book Tucker reads more often. ‘Rules For Radicals’ or ‘Mein Kampf.’

Billy Ray Valentine

April 15th, 2011
12:55 pm

In 2015 Cynthia Tucker will write a book about the Obama administration.

I’m sure it will be a wonderful book :o ) , but she will have to borrow the title,
“Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”

slobberknocker

April 15th, 2011
1:01 pm

The next book will be You Can’t Fix STUPID!!! Funny, not one response from the columns author.

Some People are Stupid

April 15th, 2011
1:02 pm

Contractor-

The free healthcare doesn’t have anything to do with them being here illegal or not. Thats the point you are missing. If you said…they are illegal and get section 8…then you have a point, but to discuss healthcare,in terms when everyone has the ability to get it free just by being indigant doesn’t apply. By your account, you should be mad at the citizens as well who go for free. The are plenty of citizens that don’t pay into healthcare in general. That comment was intended to refer to SSI and Medicare, which they aren’t entitled to. I’m confused, you are 27 with kids a one or 2 years out of college, I’m assuming that’s a typo.
If you believe sales tax doesn’t amount to much in ga i ask you to look at the breakdown of revenues. Also, if the rent portion of property taxes doesn’t amount to anything, then everyone who stays in an apartment is shortchanging the system. You would have to ask an illegal why they don’t just file for paperwork

Reform like what,unless you want the government to mandate how many kids you can have(China). That doesn’t sound too conservative. There are already caps on numbers and amount of time spent on gov’t assistance.

So let me get this straight, not only do you believe that the vast majority of the unemployed aren’t looking, you also believe that the person who was making 75k won’t take a 50k job, but would rather make 18k a year on unemployment. That doesn’t even begin to make sense

Contractor

April 15th, 2011
1:48 pm

Some People are Stupid ,

I apologize, after I read what I wrote I realized it did sound confusing. I am 27 years old, wife is 25, and we are both 1 and two years out of college with a 5 month old kid. By that, I am saying I am not a rich person and in the same boat as most Americans living a modest life. So my comments about free healthcare that illegals are partaking in because they are poor didn’t sit well with me considering I am lower middle class by the numbers, and I paid for the healthcare I used.

The small percentage of taxes they pay with every day life doesn’t add up to squat on what the should be paying is my entire point about the illegals. They are taking much more than they are giving in, and that is a fact. If it wasn’t the truth, then no one would have a problem with them here in our country. You are very short sided if you don’t think they are hiding for a reason. They aren’t illegal because they want to be citizens, they are illegal so they can reap the benefits without paying the costs.

I am not a communists, but I would seem as if some hard headed folks in this country need a reminder like China, because they are pumping out babies like it’s going out of style. Caps and amount of time are obviously being abused because it’s a problem that doesn’t sit well with a lot of Americans.

Your last paragraph is a very misleading statement to upend my point. It’s in the papers and you hear through the grapevine about how people are remaining on assistance while they find a job paying equal or more to what they were getting paid. They can’t live on $18,000 a year forever, and I never said they could, but they are riding the gravy train while they hold out for the best offer they can find, and if it takes a year or two, so be it, cause they are still receiving checks. The economy will never be back to what it used to be and people need to realize that their lives are in for a change that will force everyone to watch their money. All these $500,000-$1 million dollar neighborhoods that were popping up everywhere are a thing of the past. People are going to have to learn that things will never be the same and have to live within their means. Not exactly a hard concept to understand. Once the jar is empty, it’s empty.

buck@gon

April 15th, 2011
1:59 pm

“Once the jar is empty, it’s empty. Not exactly a hard concept to understand.”

Contractor,

I genuinely believe that someone like Cynthia Tucker looks down her nose at common sense, and I believe this of many on the radical left these days. Like Cynthia’s blog here, soon all of the left will begin losing rein on reality because of all the crap they have done. They fail to see truth where it is obvious.

Like you say, it’s not hard to understand. It’s just unpalatable.

Some People are stupid

April 15th, 2011
2:02 pm

Contractor-
Preciate you clarifying that age part.

So do you have that same animosity for citizens that don’t pay anything for healthcare?

On to the second point,I didn’t know you had to be illegal to get paid under the table, didn’t know you had to be illegal to not pay into SSI or Medicaid. The things you seem to think they would want to be illegal for are not solely benefits to being illegal. I can go stand out on South Cobb Drive and be a day-worker. Please, since I’m the short-sided one, name one benefit they get because they are illegal, that they couldn’t do if they were legal.

SO because it’s a problem with most Americans, it must be getting abused. Wow, then we have a lot of stuff that is getting abused because Americans have a lot of problems with a lot of things.

My last statement wasn’t misleading. You said instead of holding out for the 75k job, they should take a 50k job. So by your rationale, they would rather take 18k and wait on a 75k job, than to take a 50k job. If you really believe that. then ok.

Contractor

April 15th, 2011
2:03 pm

We got off topic a little here, but the bottom line is that my grandparents paid into the system their entire life, so they should get taken care of for as long as they need it, and the people that haven’t paid in, shouldn’t get to benefit from it. End of story. It’s plain and simple, and no one on this Earth can tell someone that they don’t have the right to live, UNLESS they are a drain on society and commit crimes against innocent people, then you can allow those people to die. Funny enough, that Tucker probably doesn’t believe in the death penalty for multiple felons, murderers, molesters, and rapist, but she believes in killing off the old innocent civilians.

Really last word

April 15th, 2011
2:15 pm

How many children are on SSI! I worked w/a young mother (w/4 children w/multiply fathers) and she had a 4 year old child on SS! The child has asthma. How does one put into the system enough in this circumstance to warrant getting a benefit and yet there are those like CT who balk at senior citizens needing care late in their lives (who have paid all of their lives to be able to be cared for in the latter years).

AngryRedMarsWoman

April 15th, 2011
2:25 pm

“So would you be ok with EVERYONE paying a 20% flat income tax?”

You know, on its face it sounds fine…but then I step into reality and acknowledge that there are in fact people on the low end of the economic spectrum who simply cannot afford to pay any income taxes and still live. I sincerely doubt that any significant percentage of those folks own plasma TVs and eat bon-bons all day – there are “gamers” like there are in any imperfect system, but I think most folks “down there” are honestly struggling. In an ideal world, everyone “has skin in the game” by way of paying income taxes – in reality some folks, for whatever reason, can’t pay, but I won’t assume that makes them any less of a patriot than I am.

As far as the current tax system goes, I don’t like the EITC because if you want to give people welfare you need to do it through a program with appropriate safeguards and not based on a tax return – for example because child support is not taxable it is not taken into account, so you could have a mom with two kids getting $1k per month in support and still clearing $3.5k EITC based on her $25k income (she really gets $37k a year, doesn’t she, which would qualify her for an $800 EITC). How about we just do away with itemized deductions and go with a standard percentage for everyone – say, 12% of gross income is exempt? I paid off my house, so I don’t need the mortgage deduction – and personally don’t like the government using the tax system to manipulate social issues like home ownership and charitable giving. I think the current tax brackets are fine. I would be willing to pay a “rich person” tax if there is some way I could be assured that it would be used to pay down the deficit and not thrown at some voting bloc or special interest group AND the government got realistic about spending.

I want it back

April 15th, 2011
2:37 pm

When you pay into SS and Medicare all your working life. how is that an entiltlement? If your not going to live up to your part of the program, give me my money back.

Troglodyke

April 15th, 2011
3:36 pm

I think we should spend less on those who have sex other than for reproduction. That makes as much sense as your comments about obesity and smoking.

No, it doesn’t. Other people having sex “other than for reproduction” costs taxpayers nothing. Smoking and obesity cost society millions of taxpayer dollars in healthcare costs. This is a proven fact.

What’s the matter? Don’t like it when adults enjoy themselves in the bedroom? Too bad. You a smoker, WillieBkind? Sounds like it. That would explain your ignorance.

I guess we can tell the old folks that “dying is part of living”!

Duh…it IS. I don’t understand why so many people are afraid of death–especially those who have lived a full life.

Why cannot we give serious consideration to the important issues that Ms. Tucker raises? Character attacks do not help us solve the fact that our country is bleeding to death in red ink. We have a system in which seniors can arrange to get a motorized wheelchair for any number of complaints when most of the time the really healthy choice would be getting up and down by themselves or with assistance from a family member or friend. We charge insurance or Medicare for all too expensive and worthless dietary supplements and proprietary medications which often are less effective than aspirin or placebo. Cutbacks in some of these programs are not only possible but desirable. We also need to address our failing schools-sometimes the problem is hunger, sometimes failed family care, sometimes weak schools. But the real issue is that our children are the future of this country and we older people (I am 80 and a doctor) need to put the brakes on our entitlement programs-we have had our chance.

Thank you for this. Very well said. As for your initial question, we can’t because most people who respond to this blog want to crucify Ms. Tucker. They hate her as badly as they do Obama. Why they read and respond, I do not know.

0311/0317 -1811/1801

April 15th, 2011
4:06 pm

“WE ARE EATING OUR SEED CORN”.

NO ………. WE ARE KILLING OUR SEED CORN THROUGH MASS ABORTIONS (ESPECIALLY MINORITIES).