I try to maintain a positive outlook but these numbers along with just the general feeling in the culture now don’t inspire much confidence. We’ve got an imminent crisis and nobody is doing anything about it. Forty+ years of entitlement rhetoric have pretty much wrecked our ability to talk about the subject without being labeled as some kind of “hater.”

We, as Americans, are capable of much great change. I fear however, the two political establishments have got us in a bind we can’t get out of. Not until the serious consequences hit.

I just found redstate last week. I’ve been doing my own blog, www.pointofdebate.blogspot.com and throughly enjoy this site!

Most of the public understand that there is a problem with the Federal Budget in general and Entitlements specifically, but they have no idea how BAD the problem is.
Until they understand the size of the problem and the urgency of addressing it, they will avoid the “hard choices” and sacrifices required to reform – and actually save the system.

I see the gridlock and vitriol involved in the debate over entitlements, the more I believe no changes will be made until the system is insolvent and collapses utterly under it’s own weight.

I think that’s how the song goes. One must pause and reflect on the wild eyed screams of the left on these penny ante nibbles, the spitting rage and howls of desperation, the twisted name calling. Well that last is nothing new. Comparing these cuts to the reaction of leftists is a good gauge of their totalitarian lusts & habitual crazed state.
Oh well, when I lay down on my bed of nails tonight I will comfort myself what I heard when the deal was struck,”this was the best we could do” !! From Repubs and conservatives, from Rove to Ann Coulter, this was the dying gasp, the cry of the losers that could chill the soul.
Stock up on your canned food & other means of self preservation.

But not only just for the economic/fiscal cost, but also the social cost. I wrote about a plan for entitlement reform here (point 3):
http://www.redstate.com/calvtob14/2011/08/20/the-agressive-conserative-agenda/

This article addresses the issues our nation is facing right now while stating what we should be looking for in any potential candidate for President.

Just for clarification, the numbers presented do no include Obamacare, correct? So this would be in addition to the information you’ve presented?

An entitlement program is something you did not earn or pay for, i will not live long enough to collect even half of what I paid into Soc Sec. Instead of being an entitlement this is money the government owes to me for my payments for this forced insurance program. The program does need to be reformed at best but anyone that is already retired on the program should not be penalized for it. All of you young people tht don’t understand where we are now let it be known that someday soon you too will be retired and hopefully unlike my retirement the government won’t have screwed up the investment programs and make you more dependent on Soc Sec for your retirement like they have mine.

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn’t know this. It’s easy to check out, if you don’t believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what’s what and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.[9]
An old Social Security card with the “NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION” message.
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month —
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put
away’ — you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That’s right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
The worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it and believe that the Democrats are “for the people.”
CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM

The federal public sector, as it’s currently structured and as it currently operates, can no longer effectively serve the taxpayers.

It’s too big.

It’s lost its identity as a public-service organization: become a self-service organization–in short, more of a “jobs program,” which it of course was never intended to be.

It’s too isolated from the people it’s supposed to serve.

So, we have to fundamentally restructure it.

I think the best way to start this procedure is to dramatically decrease the federal public sector’s income, and the best way to do that is to eliminate federal personal income tax; this will decrease the federal public sector’s income by about half.

The idea is to disperse the federal public sector’s authority: to decentralize our federal public sector and, ultimately, redistribute it among the states.

The voters in the individual states can then decide how they want to structure their individual public sectors: personal income tax, entitlement programs, education, et cetera, et cetera.

Even this will not give the voters the access they need; even individual state public sectors will be large bureacracies that largely exclude voters’ interests.

But it’s a step in the right direction; at least then–for example–elitist, left-wing theorists from Nevada, California and Illinois won’t be able to set policy for people far-removed in, say, North Dakota, Virginia and Texas; at least then, the voters in, say, Florida, will have a more direct say in how their tax money is spent.

But the bottom line is that I don’t think in terms of how the federal public sector, as it’s now structured, can be made to run properly. I don’t think it CAN be made to run properly, as it’s currently structured. I think we have to scrap the federal public-sector system as it’s now structured because it’s become too big, too complex, grotesquely over-funded and steered by values and beliefs that prevent it from doing what it was originally and rightfully intended to do.

described here, it helps clarify the need to give amnesty to 20 million illegals! We have cases of hospitals providing millions of dollars of care to border babies, when our own citizens who worked and paid into these funds all their lives may soon be out of luck. Let’s for sure entitle some illegals who are not citizens to free educations, health care, rent subsidies, and food stamps at the expense of our working and senior citizens. This could only make sense to a vote seeking, corrupt, self centered politician.

Could someone please explain to me how SS has contributed to the debt if there is a surplus??

I thought the problem w/ the debt was the spending, not SS?

Maybe the 99 weeks of unemployment might have something to do w/ all this debt? Maybe the disability we give out so freely is part of the problem? Maybe the welfare we give illegals and others is part of the problem?? You know, the ones that are forcing our hospitals to close??

Maybe the downturn in the economy has something to do w/ our borrowing?? Sure, SS needs tweaking, no doubt about it, but IT A’INT THE PROBLEM!!