Here's my two cents on the national Social Security discussion we're having right now. I'll make it short and sweet. For two days, I've been listening to people on the radio and TV tell me that cutting Social Security benefits by $30 a month is "no big deal." I mean, why are people getting pissed off about that, right?
Here's why. $30 a month can buy you a lot, especially when you're trying to survive on Social Security. It will pay a monthly bill on any number of utilities, it will buy you several meals, and can pay for a medication co-pay. If you're making a good living, $30 a month is truly no big deal. I spend more than that getting my nails done every month. But if you're scraping by on Social Security, that $30 a month is going to be missed.
And here's a question: If $30 a month is in fact "no big deal," then why would it be a hardship to instead tax corporations and/or millionaires an extra $30 a month? Really. I've been hearing for years that corporations and the rich are so horribly over-taxed that they can't possibly pay a penny more, but if it's only a few extra bucks a month, then what's the big deal, right?
Showing posts with label Social Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Security. Show all posts
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Entitlements
Can we please, for the love of god, STOP calling them "entitlements" and use some proper terminology here? They are "safety nets" not "entitlement programs."
I understand why the Republican'ts use the term. It makes Medicare and Social Security sound like luxury programs that Americans feel "entitled" to and therefore don't really need or deserve.
What I can't understand is why the Democrats have wholeheartedly jumped on board with this Frank Luntzian language. It's like we always dive head first into the conservative traps without thinking at all.
I have a job where I have to deal with Medicare billing quite frequently, and believe me, it's not some sort of free for all giveaway for old people. Anyone who deals with Medicare knows that their standards and anti-fraud measures are very stringent, and it's actually pretty hard to make sure something gets covered under Medicare. You really have to have all of your i's dotted and t's crossed.
The idea that we're just throwing money at these programs for no reason is laughable. People need a safety net, especially elderly people whose savings have been plundered by Wall Street.
What kind of country are we when we view taking care of our most vulnerable citizens through the same lens as spoiled rich kids receiving an inheritance? Not a very Christian one I would say.
I understand why the Republican'ts use the term. It makes Medicare and Social Security sound like luxury programs that Americans feel "entitled" to and therefore don't really need or deserve.
What I can't understand is why the Democrats have wholeheartedly jumped on board with this Frank Luntzian language. It's like we always dive head first into the conservative traps without thinking at all.
I have a job where I have to deal with Medicare billing quite frequently, and believe me, it's not some sort of free for all giveaway for old people. Anyone who deals with Medicare knows that their standards and anti-fraud measures are very stringent, and it's actually pretty hard to make sure something gets covered under Medicare. You really have to have all of your i's dotted and t's crossed.
The idea that we're just throwing money at these programs for no reason is laughable. People need a safety net, especially elderly people whose savings have been plundered by Wall Street.
What kind of country are we when we view taking care of our most vulnerable citizens through the same lens as spoiled rich kids receiving an inheritance? Not a very Christian one I would say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)