Trump Proposes to Eliminatee 19 Agencies

[Ridgerunner]

So the question is, what sacrifices are you willing to make for more defense spending? Are you willing to pay higher taxes? Are you willing to cut medicare or social security? Or do you want others to sacrifice for more defense spending?

I, for one, would pay more taxes if it really went for defense. I am willing to means test social security and Medicare, notwithstanding that I would almost certainly be one of the ones hit by it.

But regardless of that, I think there are a lot of government programs that could be cut down or eliminated. No, they won’t make the whole difference, but they will make some difference in the ever-increasing public debt. No individual ever reduces his debt by somehow paying it all off at once. He nibbles at it, bit by bit.

 

[mary_bobo]

So the question is, what sacrifices are you willing to make for more defense spending? Are you willing to pay higher taxes? Are you willing to cut medicare or social security? Or do you want others to sacrifice for more defense spending?

Aside from Ridge’s post above, I think we should eliminate those programs that duplicate others already in place and there seems to be many of those. Some means testing would be a good idea since so many want to “tax the rich”. One thing for sure, we cannot continue to go on as we have been doing.

 

[sallybutler]

Aside from Ridge’s post above, I think we should eliminate those programs that duplicate others already in place and there seems to be many of those. Some means testing would be a good idea since so many want to “tax the rich”. One thing for sure, we cannot continue to go on as we have been doing.

Department of Homeland Security would be a good one to eliminate as duplicating others (FBI, CIA, Local Police departments).

 

[stinkcat_14]

I, for one, would pay more taxes if it really went for defense. I am willing to means test social security and Medicare, notwithstanding that I would almost certainly be one of the ones hit by it.

But regardless of that, I think there are a lot of government programs that could be cut down or eliminated. No, they won’t make the whole difference, but they will make some difference in the ever-increasing public debt. No individual ever reduces his debt by somehow paying it all off at once. He nibbles at it, bit by bit.

I will concede that you are one of the few on the right side of the spectrum who understands the true redistributive aspect of programs like social security and medicare. I am amazed at how some on the right go to extreme lengths to deny that anyone ever gets more social security and medicare than they deserve.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The President’s proposal did not trim budgets across the board. In fact, he increased military spending. Come on. If we are going to do the most in trimming waste, and the goal was true austerity, why was this item increased instead of reduced?

Should this item be fixed?

airforcetimes.com/articles/growing-readiness-woes-only-7-in-10-air-force-planes-are-ready-to-fly

Growing Readiness Woes: Only 7 in 10 Air Force Planes Are Ready to Fly

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I will concede that you are one of the few on the right side of the spectrum who understands the true redistributive aspect of programs like social security and medicare. I am amazed at how some on the right go to extreme lengths to deny that anyone ever gets more social security and medicare than they deserve.

Who decides what “they deserve”?

If Social Security and Medicare are merely redistributive, and if they have their own dedicated tax revenue supply, and if those programs can be better managed, then SHOULD THEY BE BETTER MANAGED?

OR, should someone decide that some recipients are not worthy to receive payouts from those programs because they have too much money?

Who decides when someone has “too much money”?

Is there a standard for “too much” based on geographic and demographic factors?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_covet

Who decides if and when someone has too much stuff?

Who decides if a frugal person should have some of his stuff taken from him?

Prohibition of greed and envy of possessions[edit]
Catholic teaching on the prohibition of greed and envy center around Christ’s admonishments to desire and store up treasure in Heaven rather than on Earth, “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”[42] The tenth commandment is regarded as completing and unfolding the ninth. The tenth commandment forbids coveting the goods of another, as the root of the stealing and fraud forbidden by the commandment, “You shall not steal.” “Lust of the eyes” leads to the violence and injustice forbidden by the commandment, “You shall not murder.” Covetousness, like sexual immorality, originates in the idolatry prohibited by the first three commandments. Along with the ninth commandment, the tenth summarizes the entire Ten Commandments, by focusing on the intentions and desires of the heart.[43]

Covetous desires create disorder because they move beyond satisfying basic human needs and “exceed the limits of reason and drive us to covet unjustly what is not ours and belongs to another or is owed to him.”[44] Greed and the desire to amass earthy goods without limit are forbidden as are avarice and the passion for riches and power. “You shall not covet” means that we should banish our desires for whatever does not belong to us. Never having enough money is regarded as a symptom of the love of money.[45] Obedience to the tenth commandment requires that envy be banished from the human heart. Envy is a capital sin that includes sadness at the sight of another’s goods and the immoderate desire to acquire them for oneself. The baptized person should resist envy by practicing good will and rejoicing and praising God for material blessings granted to neighbor and brother.[46] God warns man away from what seems “good for food . . . a delight to the eyes . . . to be desired to make one wise,”[47] and law and grace turn men’s hearts away from avarice and envy and toward the Holy Spirit who satisfies man’s heart.[48]

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe." (Romans 3:21-22) Henceforth, Christ’s faithful “have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires”; they are led by the Spirit and follow the desires of the Spirit.”(Galatians 5:24, cf. Romans 8:14, 27)

— Catechism of the Catholic Church[49]
Catholic teaching reminds that Jesus enjoins his disciples to prefer him to everything and everyone, and bids them “renounce all that [they have]” for his sake and that of the Gospel.[50] Jesus gave his disciples the example of the poor widow of Jerusalem who gave out of her poverty all that she had to live on.[51] Detachment from riches is portrayed as obligatory for entrance into the Kingdom of heaven.[52] “Blessed are the poor in spirit”[53] illustrates that those who voluntarily do not receive their physical needs are more inclined to seek fulfillment of their spiritual needs through Jesus Christ. “The Lord grieves over the rich, because they find their consolation in the abundance of goods.”[54] “I want to see God” expresses the true desire of man. The water of eternal life quenches the thirst for God.[55] Attachment to the goods of this world are a bondage. The Scriptural remedy is the desire for true happiness that is found in seeking and finding God. Holy people must struggle, with grace from on high, to obtain the good things God promises. Christ’s faithful put to death their cravings and, with the grace of God, prevail over the seductions of pleasure and power.[56] For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet lose his own soul?[57]

 

[stinkcat_14]

Who decides what “they deserve”?

The taxpayer. It is the old golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules.

If Social Security and Medicare are merely redistributive, and if they have their own dedicated tax revenue supply, and if those programs can be better managed, then SHOULD THEY BE BETTER MANAGED?

Actually, both programs are unconstitutional, so they shouldn’t be managed at all. They should be eliminated. Also, only medicare part A has its own dedicated tax, parts B and D rely on general tax revenues.

OR, should someone decide that some recipients are not worthy to receive payouts from those programs because they have too much money?

Who decides when someone has “too much money”?

Is there a standard for “too much” based on geographic and demographic factors?

We have the standard for TANF, for food stamps, for medicaid, for housing assistance. Having a standard to determine who should receive government welfare is not particularly complicated. Are you saying that no government benefits should be means tested?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Prohibition of greed and envy of possessions[edit]
Catholic teaching on the prohibition of greed and envy center around Christ’s admonishments to desire and store up treasure in Heaven rather than on Earth, “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”[42] The tenth commandment is regarded as completing and unfolding the ninth. The tenth commandment forbids coveting the goods of another, as the root of the stealing and fraud forbidden by the commandment, “You shall not steal.” “Lust of the eyes” leads to the violence and injustice forbidden by the commandment, “You shall not murder.” Covetousness, like sexual immorality, originates in the idolatry prohibited by the first three commandments. Along with the ninth commandment, the tenth summarizes the entire Ten Commandments, by focusing on the intentions and desires of the heart.[43]

Covetous desires create disorder because they move beyond satisfying basic human needs and “exceed the limits of reason and drive us to covet unjustly what is not ours and belongs to another or is owed to him.”[44] Greed and the desire to amass earthy goods without limit are forbidden as are avarice and the passion for riches and power. “You shall not covet” means that we should banish our desires for whatever does not belong to us. Never having enough money is regarded as a symptom of the love of money.[45] Obedience to the tenth commandment requires that envy be banished from the human heart. Envy is a capital sin that includes sadness at the sight of another’s goods and the immoderate desire to acquire them for oneself. The baptized person should resist envy by practicing good will and rejoicing and praising God for material blessings granted to neighbor and brother.[46] God warns man away from what seems “good for food . . . a delight to the eyes . . . to be desired to make one wise,”[47] and law and grace turn men’s hearts away from avarice and envy and toward the Holy Spirit who satisfies man’s heart.[48]

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe." (Romans 3:21-22) Henceforth, Christ’s faithful “have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires”; they are led by the Spirit and follow the desires of the Spirit.”(Galatians 5:24, cf. Romans 8:14, 27)

— Catechism of the Catholic Church[49]
Catholic teaching reminds that Jesus enjoins his disciples to prefer him to everything and everyone, and bids them “renounce all that [they have]” for his sake and that of the Gospel.[50] Jesus gave his disciples the example of the poor widow of Jerusalem who gave out of her poverty all that she had to live on.[51] Detachment from riches is portrayed as obligatory for entrance into the Kingdom of heaven.[52] “Blessed are the poor in spirit”[53] illustrates that those who voluntarily do not receive their physical needs are more inclined to seek fulfillment of their spiritual needs through Jesus Christ. “The Lord grieves over the rich, because they find their consolation in the abundance of goods.”[54] “I want to see God” expresses the true desire of man. The water of eternal life quenches the thirst for God.[55] Attachment to the goods of this world are a bondage. The Scriptural remedy is the desire for true happiness that is found in seeking and finding God. Holy people must struggle, with grace from on high, to obtain the good things God promises. Christ’s faithful put to death their cravings and, with the grace of God, prevail over the seductions of pleasure and power.[56] For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet lose his own soul?[57]

I am not proposing that anyone’s property be taken. So your rant on greed and envy is irrelevant. Nobody has a property right to medicare or social security, anymore than people had a property right to AFDC. When they changed AFDC to TANF, nobody’s property was taken. Similarly, if we make those who can pay for their own health insurance actually pay for it, nobody’s property is being taken. Therefore, there is nothing in Church teaching that says we cannot means test medicare and social security.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am not proposing that anyone’s property be taken. So your rant on greed and envy is irrelevant. Nobody has a property right to medicare or social security, anymore than people had a property right to AFDC. When they changed AFDC to TANF, nobody’s property was taken. Similarly, if we make those who can pay for their own health insurance actually pay for it, nobody’s property is being taken. Therefore, there is nothing in Church teaching that says we cannot means test medicare and social security.

I know millionaires with mid to high six figure salaries who get Social Security and Medicare. There’s nothing right about that. People who are barely getting by, trying to raise families are paying for it. I know a guy who is about fifty who probably brings in a couple of million a year, and he’ll get social security and Medicare too.

Social Security and Medicare are welfare programs and they should be means tested.

 

[Inisfallen]

I know millionaires with mid to high six figure salaries who get Social Security and Medicare. There’s nothing right about that. People who are barely getting by, trying to raise families are paying for it. I know a guy who is about fifty who probably brings in a couple of million a year, and he’ll get social security and Medicare too.

Social Security and Medicare are welfare programs and they should be means tested.

I wouldn’t say Social Security and Medicare are “welfare programs,” but a good argument can be made that Social Security, at least, should be means-tested. People who don’t need Medicare, usually because they have other insurance, don’t make claims on Medicare and don’t benefit from it.

I know an elderly man who has a rock-solid pension of just over $100K, who agrees with me. He says he doesn’t need it, and shouldn’t get it. He’s got a point.

 

[YADA]

I am not proposing that anyone’s property be taken. So your rant on greed and envy is irrelevant. Nobody has a property right to medicare or social security, anymore than people had a property right to AFDC. When they changed AFDC to TANF, nobody’s property was taken. Similarly, if we make those who can pay for their own health insurance actually pay for it, nobody’s property is being taken. Therefore, there is nothing in Church teaching that says we cannot means test medicare and social security.

Individuals and businesses did have their property taken from them - in the form of compulsory FICA and medicare taxes upon wages … they were not given a choice - the funds were withheld as dictated by the federal government - with no real promise of return and the ability of the government to change the rules … as was done in the 1980s …

I know millionaires with mid to high six figure salaries who get Social Security and Medicare. There’s nothing right about that. People who are barely getting by, trying to raise families are paying for it. I know a guy who is about fifty who probably brings in a couple of million a year, and he’ll get social security and Medicare too.

Social Security and Medicare are welfare programs and they should be means tested.

Social Security is like an insurance policy - except its not voluntary. And in reality it works like a ponzi scheme as the government can change the rules … people have gone to prison for similar offerings.

As with insurance - those that pay in are not guaranteed a specific return on the premiums … people can pay into insurance for years and years - the more premiums they pay the less a return they see … those who buy early but die early may see a better return - for the beneficiaries - not personally.

Those millionaires you say you know - paid into this insurance pool and since social security is weighted towards the lower income workers - see less return on their social security than the lower wage earner …

The government should not have gotten involved in this scheme to begin with - they should have encouraged people to save for their own retirement … Social Security was never supposed to be the sole retirement plan - and yet for millions and millions - it is exactly that …

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Individuals and businesses did have their property taken from them - in the form of compulsory FICA and medicare taxes upon wages … they were not given a choice - the funds were withheld as dictated by the federal government - with no real promise of return and the ability of the government to change the rules … as was done in the 1980s …

Social Security is like an insurance policy - except its not voluntary. And in reality it works like a ponzi scheme as the government can change the rules … people have gone to prison for similar offerings.

As with insurance - those that pay in are not guaranteed a specific return on the premiums … people can pay into insurance for years and years - the more premiums they pay the less a return they see … those who buy early but die early may see a better return - for the beneficiaries - not personally.

Those millionaires you say you know - paid into this insurance pool and since social security is weighted towards the lower income workers - see less return on their social security than the lower wage earner …

The government should not have gotten involved in this scheme to begin with - they should have encouraged people to save for their own retirement … Social Security was never supposed to be the sole retirement plan - and yet for millions and millions - it is exactly that …

Should an insurance policy pay if the beneficiary has assets?

Originally, the Social Security law allowed competing plans. However, apparently, the competing plans were so successful that it made the bureaucrats at Social Security look bad, so the provisions for competing plans were abolished.

Check out the Galveston County plan which though small in comparison is three times more effective than Social Security.

ncpa.org/pub/ba514

nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html

Not sure if the proper descriptor is “privatized social security”, but it’s another worth while discussion.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I am not proposing that anyone’s property be taken. So your rant on greed and envy is irrelevant. Nobody has a property right to medicare or social security, anymore than people had a property right to AFDC. When they changed AFDC to TANF, nobody’s property was taken. Similarly, if we make those who can pay for their own health insurance actually pay for it, nobody’s property is being taken. Therefore, there is nothing in Church teaching that says we cannot means test medicare and social security.

There are HUGE government bureaucracies that determine who has assets and who does not. HUGE. What we do not need is yet another bureaucracy. Right now, if your income exceeds a certain amount, then there is an effort to “claw back” some of the Social Security payments by taxing them. It’s done once a year and it is complex.

AND, there is a HUGE difference between assets and income.

Although some politicians want to tax assets, there is no procedure for doing that.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Individuals and businesses did have their property taken from them - in the form of compulsory FICA and medicare taxes upon wages … they were not given a choice - the funds were withheld as dictated by the federal government - with no real promise of return and the ability of the government to change the rules … as was done in the 1980s …

It is true that the government has levied taxes to pay for things like medicare, medicaid and social security and other welfare programs. According to Church teaching however, taxation is not theft. Also, one is not entitled to welfare benefits just because one pays taxes. It has been known all along that the government is entitled to change the rules according to its whims.

Social Security is like an insurance policy - except its not voluntary. And in reality it works like a ponzi scheme as the government can change the rules … people have gone to prison for similar offerings.

As with insurance - those that pay in are not guaranteed a specific return on the premiums … people can pay into insurance for years and years - the more premiums they pay the less a return they see … those who buy early but die early may see a better return - for the beneficiaries - not personally.

Those millionaires you say you know - paid into this insurance pool and since social security is weighted towards the lower income workers - see less return on their social security than the lower wage earner …

The government should not have gotten involved in this scheme to begin with - they should have encouraged people to save for their own retirement … Social Security was never supposed to be the sole retirement plan - and yet for millions and millions - it is exactly that …

I agree, that the government creating two large welfare programs such as medicare and social security was a bad idea. Neither program is sustainable for the future. There is no reason why people who do not need welfare ought to be receiving it.

 

[stinkcat_14]

There are HUGE government bureaucracies that determine who has assets and who does not. HUGE. What we do not need is yet another bureaucracy. Right now, if your income exceeds a certain amount, then there is an effort to “claw back” some of the Social Security payments by taxing them. It’s done once a year and it is complex.

AND, there is a HUGE difference between assets and income.

Although some politicians want to tax assets, there is no procedure for doing that.

Actually, the simplest solution would be to eliminate medicare and then allow seniors who qualify to receive medicaid. That way no new bureaucracy needs to be created. Also working people will no longer be required to sacrifice for those who won’t work.

I agree that there is a difference between assets and income, but I fail to understand how that is relevant. If I have enough assets when I retire, it really won’t matter what my income is. Assets can be used to pay for medical expenses. You have stock shares, you sell them. Pretty simple. The question is, why should working people be required to sacrifice for people who can clearly pay their own way. For example, the subsidy from general tax revenues for medicare part B is around $200 billion per year. Why should our grandchildren have to sacrifice so that Warren Buffett (or myself for that matter) should have subsidized health insurance?

 

[YADA]

Should an insurance policy pay if the beneficiary has assets? …

I actually believe if you pay the insurance premiums are not perpetrating a fraud - that the insurance company is required to pay the contracted payout - regardless of any ‘assets’ you own … it is a contract …

but of course with the Social Security ponzi scheme the government collects - but gets to change the rules on the payout … but that does not change the fact that Social Security was set up like an insurance policy - where people and employers were compelled to contribute the “premium” …

Originally, the Social Security law allowed competing plans. However, apparently, the competing plans were so successful that it made the bureaucrats at Social Security look bad, so the provisions for competing plans were abolished.

Yes - many people were in similar plans - some still are - not exactly competing … even the federal government civil service retirement plan [CSRS] was non participating in social security. NOTE: those employees paid into a system - just not Social Security. May counties, cities and the railroads too … but int he 1980s they ended CSRS for new feds and now they all pay into Social Security and have a very small retirement FERS …

Check out the Galveston County plan which though small in comparison is three times more effective than Social Security.

Yes - like the CSRS