Would you support this law?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Please-
Demonstrate for us the difference.
Then tell us how this difference changes the fact Entitlements are a PRIME example of laws that should have expiration dates and/or subject to regular review/renewal.

SS retirement is an entitlement because you contribute to it and everyone is eligible. It should NEVER have an expiration date. The same for civilian retirement programs for government employees, and the military, as well as veteran's programs.

You are thinking of reviewing discretionary spending, which is not automatic. Examples include transportation, education, housing, and social service programs, as well as science and environmental organizations.

 

[M14 Shooter]

SS retirement is an entitlement because you contribute to it and everyone is eligible.

SS, an entitlement, refers to itself as mandatory spending program:

"Although benefit payments for SSA’s programs are considered mandatory spending and thus are not controlled by
appropriations acts,..."
"SSA serves millions of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries each month. The benefits these programs pay are part of the Federal Government's mandatory spending because authorizing legislation (Social Security Act) requires us to pay them."

And thus, your failure to demonstrate the between entitlement and mandatory spending.
Perhaps, is it YOU that has not a clue.

To not review, expire, and renew unappropriated mandatory spending is sheer insanity.

 

[Lesh]

Oh so that makes it different.....LOL

Still the same dickhead.

It does indeed

Asshole

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

SS, an entitlement, refers to itself as mandatory spending program:

"Although benefit payments for SSA’s programs are considered mandatory spending and thus are not controlled by appropriations acts,..."
"SSA serves millions of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries each month. The benefits these programs pay are part of the Federal Government's mandatory spending because authorizing legislation (Social Security Act) requires us to pay them."

And thus, your failure to demonstrate the between entitlement and mandatory spending.
Perhaps, is it YOU that has not a clue.

To not review, expire, and renew unappropriated mandatory spending is sheer insanity.

I am sorry you have an obvious reading comprehension problem. These programs are not funded by appropriations, meaning they should NOT be reviewed.

I posted the difference in mandatory and discretionary spending which you simply ignored or did not comprehend.

Here it is again for possible penetration:

You are thinking of reviewing discretionary spending, which is not automatic. Examples include transportation, education, housing, and social service programs, as well as science and environmental organizations.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am sorry ypu have an obvious reading comprehension problem. These programs are not funded by appropriations,...

Social Security, an entitlement program, is mandatory spending, for which there are no appropriations.
The money is spent because the law says it must be spent.

To not review, expire, and then force the active renewal of unappropriated mandatory spending is sheer insanity.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Every program in the Fed Govt has to be looked at freshly at least once every four years to determine if it is still needed

Are you talking about Biden's own proposal back in the 1990s?
Cause you know he actually suggested stopping SS until the U.S. debt was repaid. Said it right on the Senate floor - twice.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You're leftist right?

Nope

Let me ask if you support it?

Yep I do

Since you guys are always wrong, the opposite is always the right answer.

Great logic. Must be interesting going through life letting other think for you.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Are you talking about Biden's own proposal back in the 1990s?
Cause you know he actually suggested stopping SS until the U.S. debt was repaid. Said it right on the Senate floor - twice.

It as the 70s, but yes that is what I am talking about.

Too bad he has moved on from that stance .

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It as the 70s, but yes that is what I am talking about.

Too bad he has moved on from that stance .

What... yuo want to say that again?
What the heck does "It as the 70s mean?
You mean when he said it? Twice?
No... it was 1995.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What... yuo want to say that again?
What the heck does "It as the 70s mean?
You mean when he said it? Twice?
No... it was 1995.

Biden said what I posted back in 1975.

Before State of Union attack on GOP, Biden pushed Social Security sunset, fed spending freezes

The legislation Biden put forward in the Senate back in July of 1975 would have terminated “all provisions of law” which allow “new budget authority for a period of more than four fiscal years,”…

nypost.com

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Biden said what I posted back in 1975.

Before State of Union attack on GOP, Biden pushed Social Security sunset, fed spending freezes

The legislation Biden put forward in the Senate back in July of 1975 would have terminated “all provisions of law” which allow “new budget authority for a period of more than four fiscal years,”…

nypost.com

Okay... random.
I would think what he said in 1995 would be more important and pertinent - don't you?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Okay... random.
I would think what he said in 1995 would be more important and pertinent - don't you?

IF that makes you happy, sure.

So, are you going to comment on the idea or just make it all about me...again?

 

[Independent thinker]

I am sorry you have an obvious reading comprehension problem. These programs are not funded by appropriations, meaning they should NOT be reviewed.

I posted the difference in mandatory and discretionary spending which you simply ignored or did not comprehend.

Here it is again for possible penetration:

You are thinking of reviewing discretionary spending, which is not automatic. Examples include transportation, education, housing, and social service programs, as well as science and environmental organizations.

So how are we going to fix their insolvency problem if we can't be reviewed?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So how are we going to fix their insolvency problem if we can't be reviewed?

One is not necessarily dependent on the other. Thank you for illustrating your ignorance.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

IF that makes you happy, sure.

So, are you going to comment on the idea or just make it all about me...again?

It is not realistic, and that is why there is no support for it beyond 4 Senators.
I believe that there does need to be some changes to SS.
Namely, if you have $X dollars in net worth that you very much don't need it - then you don't get it. Which means SS will become what it should have been in the first place - a social program, not a savings system. People look at SS as their money so no matter your net worth.. I should get it.
That needs to change.
I am 100% against any age changes. Period. Nada. Horrible idea.
People are living longer, but they are not living younger.

 

[Delldude]

It does indeed

Asshole

LOL......Biden supports the same thing and it isn't an issue......please explain why.....

Biden supported busing segregation....it's no longer an issue?

 

[Lesh]

LOL......Biden supports the same thing and it isn't an issue......please explain why.....

Biden supported busing segregation....it's no longer an issue?

Problem for you is that he DOESN'T "support the same thing".

Maybe 50 years ago he supported something similar...but that was...FIFTY years ago.

Not NOW

 

[Delldude]

It does indeed

Asshole

LOL..................

Are you talking about Biden's own proposal back in the 1990s?
Cause you know he actually suggested stopping SS until the U.S. debt was repaid. Said it right on the Senate floor - twice.

 

[Delldude]

Problem for you is that he DOESN'T "support the same thing".

Maybe 50 years ago he supported something similar...but that was...FIFTY years ago.

Not NOW

Back pedaling, I see.

Any idea how many politicians say things that are politically expedient at the time and then flip flop for votes later? Bottom line is they said it and it doesn't go away.
Obama and same sex marriage for one.

 

[Lesh]

Back pedaling, I see.

Any idea how many politicians say things that are politically expedient at the time and then flip flop for votes later? Bottom line is they said it and it doesn't go away.
Obama and same sex marriage for one.

That was then. This is now.

This is what matters