Are Entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid) unsustainable?

Posted by: DavidMGold

  • Yes. Federal unfunded liabilities exceed $127 trillion!

  • No. We can always just tax the rich!

67% 12 votes
33% 6 votes
  • This is kind of a biased poll, but it's true. Saying we're gonna tax the rich to pay off the debt is ridiculous. We need to boost tax revenue by slashing taxes and stimulating the economy, bring business back to America, while also cutting spending more than in half. Phase out of entitlement programs, cut military spending, get rid of departments we don't need and that can be privatized. Taxing the rich is not a solution.

  • These programs could have worked in the U.S. if they were funded properly from the get go. It is now, however, too late for America. Benefits will have to be slashed to a bare minimum or the country will go bankrupt (as did Detroit and potentially many other American cities as a result of the same liabilities). In Canada, our federal pension plan (CPP) is fully funded and will outlive the Baby Boomers (no unfunded liabilities unless the market completely tanks). This proves that it is possible with some planning. I am worried about what will happen to my American brothers and sisters when the money runs out and the food stamps stop coming.

  • The liabilities speak for themselves

  • Greece.

  • It's not as simple as taxing the rich -- so this makes me think this is a pretty biased poll. However, if you raise or remove the payroll tax cap so someone making a billion dollars a year pays the same rate as someone making 100,000 a year, and it'll be solvent for a hell of a lot longer, if not forever. Obviously it needs to be tweaked, but far too many people depend on these programs for us to remove them or phase them out.

  • It's not unsustainable in theory, but you'd need to fix a lot of things to make it sustainable.

  • No, but our military spending is.

    Posted by: TBR
  • Given that they aren't entitlement programs since they're meant to help the needy, I would say this question is biased.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Vox_Veritas says2015-08-11T23:17:47.7076891Z
Why should the rich put up with the level of taxes that would be needed to pay that off?
TBR says2015-08-12T04:01:40.7379521Z
Because we have been pandering to the rich for the better part of half a century.
Texas14 says2015-08-12T04:41:00.8268944Z
Corporate welfare needs to end. There are so many loopholes in the tax code that result in some corporations paying nothing in taxes, while small businesses who can't afford lawyers to help them with the loopholes get stuck with 40 percent rates and even higher. If we had one flat rate and through out the entire tax code, the loopholes would end, as would the billions of taxpayer dollars going to corporate welfare. (Just to be clear I'm for decreasing regular welfare as well, so I'm consistent.)
Renegader says2015-08-12T06:42:50.6281518Z
Various expenditures need a good ole' slashing (corporate welfare, social programs, "defense" spending.) Many areas need an increased funding (Research funding, education grants, infrastructure.)
Roodvlees says2015-08-12T20:32:02.8032143Z
This poll is so bias. The rich doing their part for the benefit they receive would not be unfair. And letting people rot so churches can get credit by helping some of them is not good for finances.
briantheliberal says2015-08-13T02:22:34.8311825Z
Nice biased poll. This is why it's hard for me to take conservatives seriously. You always change words when you feel like you can create some form of negative connotation to the topic it in reference. It is nothing more than another one of your pathetic fear mongering, hate spreading tactics.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.