Government Entitlements are Endless

It's time America take back control from government and rethink entitlements paid by taxpayers.

As an American, I know I’m not allowed to say I’m scared so I will say I am deeply concerned. Taxes, entitlements, so many give-a-ways and so little productivity from those who should be working. Strong-bodied men running to the doctors to feign ADH and other mental problems requiring them to be on the dole of the system; usually social security. So many women having babies to get more money from government to keep them. This just did not happen under this administration; it’s happened under government while we were not paying much attention. Oh we might have complained to a friend about “those pot smoking druggies getting welfare” or “that baby’s daddy on his seventh love child with a third or fourth mommy,” but we probably stopped at doing much.

It seems that people want others to think for them, do for them as they-- be lazy. 

Granted, most do respect the clergy, educators and those in government trusting that they will do their job. However, we are all human, and the list of just those three entities alone and the deeds they’ve done should make a petty thief cringe. Government specifically, is out of control raging and destroying the American Dream. Yet, when will Americans say they have had enough? In this big world there’s so much to focus, but when do we scream that giving more than half of our paycheck to government is too much? Wait. All Americans are not giving half; some are giving nothing. Some are receiving much for nothing. 

Why do some pay more? This week, Obama has called for extending the Bush tax cuts. Those who earn, an Obama defined, “less” remain included in the tax cuts, but those who make “more” will pay more. Americans who work and pay taxes seem to be like the gerbil in that spinning wheel cage racing to catch up. The cage never stops spinning until we’re dead, but then there’s that Inheritance Tax, too.

When will those paying nothing begin to pay something? It’s time that all Americans take ownership for all of these taxes and entitlements. Perhaps the Fair Tax is the answer, but that’s another discussion at another time (go to http://www.fairtax.org for more information).

When did Americans take giving and charity to mean government handouts? Americans give. Ask the Salvation Army, Red Cross, a friend with cancer, a family whose house has burned to the ground--Americans are there. Yet, somewhere the government got involved in America’s business. Government began taxing Americans to give handout to where Government thought the money should go. 
Government is supposed to provide for our safety, but not nurse us from birth to death (go to www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/ to see how this government insults women and works to spend our tax dollars).

If you have not read Obama’s concept of The Life of Julia at his website, it is a must read depicting how women are helpless and need government intervention for their entire lives. Disgusting. What Obama’s Julia depicts is the VICTIMIZATION OF AMERICA at the hands of government and our tax dollars. 

It is time that their be a separation of Government and taxpayer’s dollars. Each speech Obama reads should put America on alert that he is working to take more trillions of dollars from taxpayers to pay for his czars, his green energy debacles and more government waste. Most of what Government does can and must be outsourced to provide the private sector with jobs and to limit Government. In China, Russia and most communist countries, the government takes controls. In America we need to get back that control from Government.

Government’s entitlements have become limitless. Government serves up breakfast, lunch and dinner, provides housing, gives vouchers for heat and electricity, schooling, cell phones, hospitalization, laptops, medicine, gasoline, computers, and services beyond imagination and even mows the grass--all with our tax dollars. Limitless government spending with little accountability.

Perhaps, come the next election voters will do the math. Trillions of dollars in taxes committed by government’s limitless spending for entitlements, Obamacare, czars, and so much more government waste that equals America’s doom. The only plus in all of this is that, hopefully, Americans will vote Obama out of office, quickly. Until Obama is out of office, as an America, I am scared and beyond concerned.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

John McMillan August 27, 2012 at 08:28 PM
No, it's not ridiculous, it is fact. Look it up. And both of you are just still so convinced that everyone on food stamps is LAZY. THAT is ridiculous...and MZ, you are so blinded by your bias that you don't even see it.
lyn August 27, 2012 at 08:37 PM
You are going based on what people spend their money on - not what they could spend their money on. If you have some facts to back up what you say, provide the study. But not a study of the poors spending habits - but of what nutritional food costs vs. bad food costs. Common sense even tells you that preparing yourself costs less than buying a meal for a family of 5 off the dollar menu. If each buys a burger, fries and drink - thats $15. Are you telling me that a nutritious meal can't be made at home for that? It can for much less. Even spaghetti and sauce is a few bucks. Try a pack of hot dogs and buns. I'm not even talking nutrition now. Throw in a salad and veggies. Have you ever been in a grocery store?
Dan Marol August 27, 2012 at 08:41 PM
Bill - Very well said. All my Republican friends were very quiet during the Bush years as the deficits were skyrocketing. I remember a reporter asking Dick Cheney about the deficit, and his answer was something like "deficits don't matter". Yea, they only matter when there is a Democratic president! Can any of you Tea Partiers on here please explain to me what they think would have happened if Obama came into office in Jan. of 2008 and started slashing spending left and right? No stimulus, no auto bailouts, no unemployment extension, massive layoffs of federal and local government workers, all in the name of cutting spending. Remember that the private sector was in serious peril, and loans for businesses were almost unheard of. Do you think the economy would have been better off??? That unemployment would be lower than what it is today?? Of course not! During these times, the government is the only entity that can try to spur growth, which is why spending had to increase. Once things get better, then we need to seriously tighten our belts. I can only imagine hearing from these same conservatives if Obama did those things and as a result we would have 18% unemployment. I don't think they would be praising him for cutting our deficit while we ended up in a depression!
Dan Marol August 27, 2012 at 08:44 PM
By the way, "MZ", I don't have any points yet...I'm waiting...
lyn August 27, 2012 at 08:50 PM
Repeating my post elsewhere: National Debt: 1/20/1993 - $4,188,092,107,183.60 1/20/1994 - $4,500,676,535,249.79 1/20/1995 - $4,796,537,934,595.60 1/19/1996 - $4,988,397,941,589.45 1/17/1997 - $5,309,774,506,681.99 1/20/1998 - $5,495,525,658,807.45 1/20/1999 - $5,623,807,213,463.02 1/20/2000 - $5,706,174,969,873.86 1/19/2001 - $5,727,776,738,304.64 1/18/2002 - $5,922,321,839,074.39 1/17/2003 - $6,388,587,973,011.41 1/20/2004 - $7,006,834,072,435.49 1/20/2005 - $7,613,215,612,328.37 1/20/2006 - $8,175,743,292,992.87 1/19/2007 - $8,675,085,083,537.48 1/18/2008 - $9,188,640,287,930.39 1/20/2009 - $10,626,877,048,913.08 1/20/2010 - $12,327,380,804,696.82 1/20/2011 - $14,056,313,474,932.58 1/20/2012 - $15,236,271,879,792.78 8/23/2012 - $15,976,519,029,144.14 Clinton - 1/20/1993 to 1/20/2001 Bush - 1/20/2001 to 1/20/2009 Obama - 1/20/2009 to now As per above, in no year did the national debt go down or did Clinton leave Bush with a surplus that Bush turned into a deficit. Clinton did not have any surplus years, as you can see - the debt went up each year. He came close. I'm not defending what Bush did. But look at what Obama has done in less than half the time. + $1.54 trillion Clinton- 8 years + $4.9 trillion Bush- 8 years + $5.35 trillion Obama -3 years, 7 months
Dan Marol August 27, 2012 at 08:57 PM
MZ- Try to put politics aside for one second. Are you seriously ok with someone making $20 million a year and paying only 11% in taxes, while someone making $200,000 a year pays 35%?
Dan Marol August 27, 2012 at 09:03 PM
Lyn- I'm not sure why you brought up your table again. I don't think anyone is saying the nation debt went down under Clinton (although it did slow). What IS true is that the YEARLY budget went from deficits to yearly surpluses during the Clinton years. After Bush's first year in office, the surplus was turned into a deficit, and has been so every since.
lyn August 27, 2012 at 09:14 PM
Where are you people getting your numbers? If its a SINGLE person (joint would be less), and not EVEN considering any deductions, including standard or itemizing, and exemptions - the tax is $50,897 on taxable income of $200,000. That's 25% -NOT 35%. And who is paying 11% on $20 mil? Again, I agree the wealthier should pay more. But, I also think using $250,000 is too high. Compared to most people, that is wealthy. Start raising the rates at $100,000. Also, get rid of that SS ceiling of $106,800 and reinstate that additional 2% they reduced the last 2 years - how about saving SS that way?
lyn August 27, 2012 at 09:21 PM
I thought it was relevant. But you are wrong. There was no surplus. Look at the table. The debt continued to climb. Do you know what the debt is composed of? What people like to say was his surplus was offset by the borrowings from SS -making the debt go up - so there actually was a deficit. Borrowings from SS is part of the national debt. If you don't understand, go to the US Treasury site. No Clinton surplus was turned into a deficit under Bush. It is in black and white. You can see the numbers increase each year.
Elyse August 27, 2012 at 09:24 PM
John is right about the poor having less access to nutritious foods. Obesity is not limited to class. There is so much crap in our foods these days (Food, Inc. is available on Netflix to learn more). With this drought I suspect raw food costs will rise even more. First off, to pretend that food stamps for a family are enough to feed them is ridiculous, same with cash assistance. The max tax assistance for a family of 2 is $368 in the state of Ohio, that seems livable (scoff). And I'm sorry if this comes across as offensive, but I think it's disgusting that people think people in poverty should live miserable lives because it's somehow their fault they're impoverished and because they're taking "your" money, you have the right to tell them what they can and can't do with it. No time to relax, no big screen TV.. Really?! As if it's not bad enough they're living the life they are, but now they should have no amenities. These attitudes add to the stigma of those in need. I'm not going to deny that some people are lazy and content having very little. As a general whole it's not people being lazy, it's people needing help when they are down (as I stated in a previous comment). As far as drug tests for welfare recipients: give me a break. Florida spent way more money to do the testing and guess what, turns out only 2-5% failed (or refused). Tax payer dollars wasted. But I'm also an advocate for no drug testing for employment either- different debate entirely.
lyn August 27, 2012 at 09:32 PM
In this case, I'm talking about being lazy with food preparation and making the effort to find out what is better to eat and how to prepare. As I said, maybe a condition by some of hopelessness and giving up. Or not caring. Please reread my comment and you may see I was not meaning to be offensive, at least in that comment.
Dan Marol August 28, 2012 at 12:54 AM
Lyn- I am trying to explain to you that you are just talking about the national debt. I am talking about the year to year budget, which would show a deficit if the government takes in less money than it spends, and a surplus if the government takes in more money than it spends for that given fiscal year. Please check out this link, as it proves my point: http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
MZ August 28, 2012 at 01:46 AM
John, I at no point said everyone on food stamps was lazy. I asked serious questions. Could obesity be a lack of self discipline? Is it a bad decision to eat off the dollar menu everyday or not? I it impossible to eat off the dollar menu and not be obese? Can you balance the poor diet with additional aerobic activities to minimize the impact? Elyse, there are many people that do without cable or a big screen TV in order to make ends meet and to not have to take handouts. My question for you is do you put your money where your mouth is or are you all talk? Are you helping people or just idealistic and want the nanny state to take care of everything? John and Elyse, you might be surprised to know what I do with my free time, how much I personally reach out and help those less fortunate with my time and money. I have great sympathy for those who have come upon bad fortune so long as they are willing to help themselves. I do however have little sympathy for the takers.
MZ August 28, 2012 at 01:49 AM
Dan, I am all for a simplified tax code and a flat tax. It sounds like we agree. The tax code is insane and I pay a ton to lawyers and accountants to make sure I don't get myself in trouble. There has got to be a better way. Can we agree on a massive reform to the tax code, to across the board spending cuts, and to a balance budget amendment?
lyn August 28, 2012 at 02:13 AM
Dan- I have been following what you were saying - I do know the difference. I don't think YOU quite understand. If you look at the difference from one year to the next in the national debt, you can see if that year was a surplus or a deficit. And in every year I listed there was an increase - so no year had a surplus. You must remember that the national debt is made up of borrowings from intragovernmental holdings as well. Even though some like to say that Clinton had a surplus, actually there was not a surplus in ANY year because of borrowings from SS, which caused the debt to go up every year he was in office. However, he did a better job than most.
James Murphy August 28, 2012 at 03:55 AM
john your comment takes for granted that the poor are actually poor, I would guess that 30-40% are actually poor but the rest are abusers of the system, there are more people working under the table that are on food stamps that you want to admit. Be honest John you know its true
lyn August 28, 2012 at 11:05 AM
This is how the national debt breaks down as of August 23: 11,197,966,497,649.15 Debt Held by the Public 4,778,552,531,494.99 Intragovernmental Holdings 15,976,519,029,144.14 Total Public Debt Outstanding Borrowing from SS are very much a part of the debt. You just can't look at the the annual difference in line 1 - you need to look at the annual difference in the total debt to see if each year the debt went up or down. Both lines 1 and 2 make up the national debt. You cannot pick and choose which line you want to use to prove a point. It is the TOTAL that matters. When you get the annual difference, you must consider borrowings (line 2) and offset them with the so-called surplus or deficit (line 1).
Phyllis Stager August 28, 2012 at 12:36 PM
I just have to say this discussion is one of the most heartwarming, intelligent exchanges I have ever seen on a blog. Instead of denigrating the personal qualities of the contributors, both sides have exchanged decent well thought out opinions. Most blogs are places where people wind up venting anger and nastiness at each other and political parties. I commend you all...this is beautiful to see. I grew up in Lake County...and I live in Texas. You Ohioans make me proud!
Dan Marol August 28, 2012 at 12:48 PM
Lyn- I thought that the top income tax rate was currently 35%, and I also assumed that if you're making $200K, that you would be paying that top rate. I'm not a tax lawyer or accountant, but it seems like you are, so I will defer to what you have stated as far as the rates go for someone making $200K. I got the 11% on $20 million from Mitt Romney himself, which as we know he doesn't pay an income tax, but pays on earned income, which is taxed at such a low rate. Lyn, I actually agree with you. I think we do need to start raising taxes on people above $100K, not because I want to punish higher earners, but because it is a necessity to save us from collapse. However, I am a believer in the Simpson/Bowles deficit reduction plan, which includes raising revenue, AND some tough cuts in spending throughout the budget. I have heard from non-partisan economic experts, and they all seem to say we can fix our budget problems very easily. They just include raising taxes, and huge spending cuts. The problem is that Republicans refuse to raise any taxes, and the Democrats refuse to tackle the big social programs which are so popular. We cannot fix our fiscal issues just by cutting spending, nor can we fix them by just raising taxes on the wealthy. It has to be done together. MZ, yes, I agree, we need a simplified tax code for sure!
Dan Marol August 28, 2012 at 01:08 PM
Lyn- OK, I understand what you are trying to say. However, when you click on the factcheck.org link that I provided, it shows a chart from the CBO which does show a yearly surplus under certain years of the Clinton Administration. The factcheck page also addresses your SS borrowing issue as well. What is your argument with the factcheck site? You are saying that if there was a surplus, why didn't the national debt go down during the Clinton years. I think that is a good question, but perhaps the interest on the debt is so great, that it offset whatever advantages the yearly budget surplus provided. However, I still don't think you can dispute the fact that there was a yearly budget surplus during Clinton's second term.
lyn August 28, 2012 at 01:15 PM
Dan- Yes, 35% is the top TIER. But, taxable income is taxed on tiered levels, and therefore that is how they come up with the percentages you hear in the news and how using your example it came up to 25%. And, for those with UNEARNED, passive income, they do get a big tax break that brings their total tax down to a low percent. But I think Romneys was 13-14% - still too low in my opinion. But, that is the tax code - he, as well as others, do nothing wrong by following it and you can bet that they probably are audited almost every year at those income levels. You and I also get those tax breaks on dividend income. One thought behind that is that those are distributions from corporations that have already paid taxes on the profits and those are payments back to the investors and to tax them for those distributions would be like double taxation. Kind of like the evils of the inheritance tax. There are some republicans like Lindsey Graham who are considering breaking the Norquist pledge and raising taxes. But, letting the 2001/2003 bush tax changes/reductions expire to me doesn't really seem to be raising taxes. Since those were meant to expire in 2010, how is that raising taxes? The only problem there, most Americans will see an increase in there taxes of $2000-$4000.
John Osbourne August 28, 2012 at 01:32 PM
The honest to God truth is: Thanks to the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking, the system was designed to create an ever-increasing amount of debt. No matter who the next President is, the National Debt will continue to increase at an exponential rate. There's no choice. In order to continue paying on the previous debt, we need to borrow more money from the Fed. It's a vicious cycle. The only way to gain control of the National Debt is to eliminate the privately owned central bank and restore the power to create/print money back to the Treasury, where the Constitution of The United States of America original placed it.
Dan Marol August 28, 2012 at 01:33 PM
Lyn- After doing some research on the internet, I realized where you are getting your information from. There are a few right-wing websites out there disclaiming the "Clinton Surplus". Apparently there is an argument going on about what to include as "debt", like you mentioned with SS borrowing. When one of these bloggers e-mailed factcheck.org challenging their claim of the Clinton surplus, this was the editor's response: "Nevertheless, the governmentd took in more money than it spent for four straight years. That's a surplus. The gross debt is another matter. You are correct that IOUs are piling up in the Social Security Trust Fund to fund future spending, and those chickens are coming home to roost in the not very distant future. If you recall, the Clinton folks wanted to set the surpluses aside in a "lockbox" to somehow cover that. But that didn't happen. Brooks Jackson Director, FactCheck.org"
John Osbourne August 28, 2012 at 01:34 PM
It's okay though, because the Federal Reserve is a pyramid scheme and every pyramid scheme eventually collapses.
lyn August 28, 2012 at 01:35 PM
Dan- If there was a true surplus, you would see a decrease in the national debt from one year to the next. If I earn 50,000 and borrow 10,000 and I spend 54,000 - do I have a 6,000 surplus? Not really when you know that you have to pay back that 10,000. You actually have a deficit. Every year the government borrows from SS and it is a real debt. That is why it is a component of the national debt.
Elyse August 28, 2012 at 01:35 PM
MZ, no I'm not just an idealist, nor do I advocate for a "nanny state". I'm advocate of bottom-up governance, placing more power in the hands of localities and state through a more direct democratic practice which calls for proportioned representation (not a single-member district elected based on a plurality of votes). Additionally, I'm not all talk. Lyn, I understand what you are saying now. Why don't people just opt to cook? There's a culture to poverty that little understand (and it's hard to understand if you can't imagine yourself in their shoes). It's a different lifestyle. If you're looking for studies, I highly recommend Jack L. Roach, a sociologist who studies the culture of poverty (you can google his name and read various previews). William Julius Wilson does a lot of race studies, but also addresses the issue of poverty. There is another great book called "Gang Leader for a Day" which is an ethnographic study of a Chicago gang. It offers a different perspective on deep poverty and gang relations. I highly recommend this book to anyone just looking for a different perspective. Additionally, the show The Wire is quite sociologically accurate and addresses crime and poverty, task force budgets, etc. James- You're assumptions are way off. Testimony before the House Ways and Means committee state in an "average" year, about one-half of the AFDC caseload leaves the welfare rolls; 70% in two; and 90% within 5.
John Osbourne August 28, 2012 at 01:36 PM
Wrong. The privately owned Federal Reserve Bank controls the purse strings.
Elyse August 28, 2012 at 01:38 PM
Agreed, Phyllis. It's important that people can exchange information opposed to tearing people down.
lyn August 28, 2012 at 01:52 PM
Dan- Actually, I'm getting my info from the U.S. Department of the Treasury site: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np I prefer to look at facts and figures rather than sites with an agenda that interpret info and put their own slant on it. But, I'll look at those that you mentioned out of curiosity.
John Osbourne August 28, 2012 at 01:52 PM
On a more sad note: this also means that the World Bank will step in and place "austerity" measures on the United States. This is essentially the same type of thing that banks do to individuals who cannot make payments on a house; foreclosure. The World Bank will take control of our nation's resources.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something