Originally posted by no1marauder
There's some decent points there but a lot of it is misleading. It doesn't make much sense to compare the percentage of people receiving federal benefits now (in an economy still recovering from sharp recession caused by a banking crisis) to what it was in 1995. Of course, the number of those receiving benefits increase in a struggling economy; they are 9% in ten years under Obama's long term budget projections, that's not enough in my view.
When social security was created it used actuarial tables as a baseline. Social Security was never indexed to the actuarial tables. I am quite certain that FDR did not intend for people to sit idle for a third of their productive lives. If he did, he would have set the age for benefit eligibility at 46.
The New Deal was created to assist people through the Great Depression. Today, it's a massive giveaway to the children of the Greatest Generation - the Most Entitled Generation. Artificially offering people in their 60s (who, by the way, are far healthier than at their age than their grandparents were) a way out of the workforce does not create jobs. Incentivizing small business owners creates jobs. And I know I don't need to go through the ratios with you, because you know them: 12:1 then, 2:1 now. We're paying six times as much in real dollars for that program alone than people were when it was created. You want to talk about fairness, well...that's a good place to start.
Then, let's talk about Medicare. Let's face it - the wrinkles appear, the joints start to creak, and you wake up one day and realize you've got more days behind you than in front of you. So every time you catch a cold, your doctor orders up $5K of tests, because she doesn't want to get sued.
The surest way to destroy the Republican Party is to recommend the right course of action for the country. Bring on the death panels, hospices, and rationed care. Expect one hell of a lot more from people in taking responsibility for their own health. After all, since this is a government right, my Party should have some say in how that benefit gets administered.
You love government programs, so I want to give you what you want. I want to create the biggest government agency in the history of mankind.
Here's what I say - I say we establish an Eating and Exercise Enforcement Agency. The EEEA will be staffed by volunteers, to minimize the cost of the program. See, I want to do what's right for the country.
The mission of the EEEA is this: To promote the general welfare through aggressive enforcement of mandatory exercise and healthy eating programs. Because good health in this country is paramount, and a huge portion of our national budget is dedicated to payouts to "seniors", insofar as the economy is a national security issue, good health is now a national security issue.
EEEA Enforcement Agents (EEEAEA) will be tasked, chartered, and charged with ensuring good health and food choices at every meal, and with enforcing mandatory exercise policies.
Because it is not possible to monitor every meal in every home in America, EEEA Agents will have the authority to enter the homes of any and all Americans between reasonable breakfast and dinner times (6 AM - 8 PM). They will have the duty of confiscating, immediately and on site, any and all food products deemed unhealthy. Warrantless, unannounced entries shall be authorized, because a family can prepare a nontypical healthy meal if they are aware that the EEEA will inspect on a given time and date.
EEEA Agents shall, at all times and at their sole discretion, require on the spot exercise of any individual or group that the Agent deems in any way unhealthy. To ensure compliance with the Policy, and for self protection and preservation, Agents shall at a minimum be equipped with nonlethal means of coercion (pepper spray, mace, taser, or billy club are all recommended options).
After all - nothing comes for free. Ok, you voted yourselves the money - the what. We get to decide the how.