CANDIDATE’S POSITION ON ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS UNSUSTAINABLE
|| By FITSNEWS || Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (who is running for president) and S.C. Rep. James Smith (who is widely rumored as a possible Democratic candidate for governor in 2018) are two of the nicest politicians you’ll ever meet. We like them both immensely on a personal level – and not just because they (like this website’s founding editor) are accomplished bass guitarists.
But the bass guitar fraternity does not mean we have to agree with them ideologically – and we don’t.
Huckabee and Smith are avowed fiscal liberals, even though they wear different party labels.
The latest evidence of Huckabee’s fiscal unfitness? An item from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).
“(Last week) at a campaign event in Florida, Governor Huckabee suggested that Social Security and Medicare should not change for anyone currently paying into the program, after he has already pledged to oppose any increase in taxes,” the group stated. “When it comes to Social Security, the Huckabee plan is mathematically impossible if he intends to keep the program as self-financing. The program is scheduled to run out of funds on a combined basis by 2033, which is more than 20 years before those newly entering the workforce begin to retire. Even eliminating all benefits for new workers would have no impact on the date of insolvency.”
In other words, Huckabee’s math doesn’t add up.
This website has been sounding the alarm on entitlement spending for years (most recently here). It is one of many ticking time bombs policymakers in Washington, D.C. have chosen to ignore rather than address – enabling it to add explosive power with each passing year.
It’s not just Washington, either: We have yet to see a presidential candidate from either party address it honestly or substantively.
In fact the only politician even talking about the issue is fictitious – House of Cards’ Frank Underwood, who proposed taking $500 billion from entitlements and putting it toward job creation in infrastructure, government and private sector hiring.
“You are entitled to nothing,” Underwood said to Social Security beneficiaries.
Nice!
Opponents of entitlement reform argue government has made promises – and that it must keep those promises. They argue cuts would decimate elderly people on fixed incomes.
Our counterpoint? The “promise” of Social Security is – and has been – demonstrably false for decades, with millions of younger workers paying into a system that will be bankrupt when it comes time for them to retire.
As for how to make sure cutting the program doesn’t leave grandma wanting for daily bread, well that’s a conversation that needs to be had: Now. Well, a decade or two ago, actually.
And it’s a conversation that must include specific solutions (i.e. cuts), not double speak from status quo politicians like Huckabee who continue to peddle the myth that American can have its entitlement cake and eat it, too.
It can’t … which is one of many reasons America can’t afford Mike Huckabee.
96 comments
As to Huckabees “math” not ” adding up.”
Hell its no worse than yours and your fellow”supply siders.”(see Sam Brownback)
You know,the totally discredited idea that cutting tax rates somehow increases revenues?
Those like you who live in glass houses shouldn’t be casting stones.
—- ya’ could be right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R14G5ac76Uc
Based on the wording of Folks’ article, he has never read Huckabee’s plan. He is merely quoting what someone else says it says. Yet he accepts what another critic says as gospel.
UR common core math will not save your arguments.
You might want to catch up with”Supply Side” Sam calling for the biggest tax increase in Kansas history.
Hilarious!
Yes a tax increase on middle class Kansans. He will not increase taxes on the mega-wealthy donors who pushed his policies in the first place. Typical GOP cut taxes on the rich, increase taxes on the poor and middle class, cut benefits for the poor and middle class.
Repeat after me: “Fuck you, got mine!”
I support school choice, however, I am not opposed to Common Core. Yes, some glitches, but K12 has excellent curriculum. Demanding? Absolutely. However, my daughter at 6 is an outstanding reader for her age. Her Math skills are also outstanding.
You can say that is because she is home schooled, but we use the nationalized Common Core Curriculum (yes curriculum for those snarks who want to question it).
There will come a time I will likely find a school for her, more for social reasons than anything else. We try to make up for the lack of social interaction, but it’s hard when you homeschool, most sports/dance and so on, allow for very little social interaction v. a classroom. So while she has maybe 10 kids she interacts with on holidays, she has strong family values and is excelling at a rapid rate intellectually. So I love Common Core – right now.
GOP and math are like oil and water.
In a recent Q&A with Trey Gowdy he stated over and over that a 5 year increase in the retirement age would cure social security’s ills. When those who are close to the current retirement age grumbled, he stated that the plan currently being unofficially proffered amongst the representatives would exclude those within a time frame of 10 or so years of the current retirement age.
We could just eliminate the income cap on earnings over $117K and everything would be fine.
Per Gowdy that would push the 2033 further out but not eliminate it. He had no problem with it but thinks an increase in the age will be a more permanent fix.
They have already increased the age, what age is Congressman Gowdy recommending?
I believe he said 68-70. The original age was calculated based on life expectancy in the 1930s. Just like inflation, that number is no longer valid.
Thanks. I just looked it up. If it is increased by 5 years for full benefits, anyone born after 1960, the age would be 72. It is currently 67 for full benefits.
I agree the life expectancy is longer, but not many people can work into their 70’s and the bigger issue isn’t the monthly check IMHO, but health insurance costs.
I am assuming a 5 year increase means age 70?
Or go to a simple Flat Tax or some other simple tax code.
I’ve been saying this for years. It is a simple fix that would push the SS problem out like 30 years, the last thing I read on it.
While it can be argued that this can’t fix the problem now, it just might have fixed it in the past. I never really understood why they cap income earnings for Social Security, but they do.
At one time retirement was considered a benefit, a plan people invested in that would be there if/when they needed it. Now it is considered an “Entitlement” I wish the hell someone would have told us it was an entitlement program and given us the option of opting out, before piggy backing on a benefit program with a bunch of entitlement programs. Talk about a circle jerk. It’s like Dumb and Dumber a suitcase full of IOUs, but the Government good for it.
Yes! Something those who advocate raising the age for SS eligibilty even higher are not getting or don’t care; while the poplulation in general may be getting older due to living longer, they are still falling apart in various ways due to aging. Bad back, bad hips, bad legs, dementia, Alzheimers, and much more is visiting itself upon the stil alive-yet still aging population. The amount and quality of work that many of these people are able to produce will necessarily, in many cases, become much less.
As with the ill-founded raise in years of service or age necessary for state employees and police to retire that Haley foisted off on the state a few years ago, you will have worn out people trying to perform tough jobs and younger people won’t be able to get the jobs because the old farts won’t leave them.
I remember in my early years of working. It totally irritated me that because I was young, no children, no strings attached, I got crappy pay, longer days, all the duty no one wanted to perform, while those “old farts” as you call them, under performed and the pay was so much more. I remember thinking, this is a horrible way to run a business! I respect the older and the wiser, but they peak and ripen and sometimes are even rotten (Grumpy old wo/men) in the work place. That isn’t true across the board, but when I reach 70, I hope I am not working at a donut store to make ends meet.
I know. Same here. I am one of the worn out old farts. I don’t sant to be on Two Notch trying to sell my body to have food on the table and a roof over my head.
Hey, that’s a disgusting bit of visual imagery, but it backs my point up.
:-)
I don’t know your name, but that is a disgusting bit of visual imagery LOL ;)
The minute Huckabee publicly supported an admitted child molester he was finished. He will never get the nomination, mystery solved.
With all due respect, Gov Mike Huckabee never supported a child molester. In fact he said the 14 year old boys actions were inexcusable. But having proved himself over the last 12 years, the accused is forgivable AFTER asking for forgiveness and seeking help. If a crime had been committed, that would bring a fine and a sentence.
“If” a crime had been committed? You must be joking. The guy was never charged because his parents concealed his actions. The actions he admitted to were – and still are – felonies. Unfortunately, the statute of limitations is up.
His parents are lawbreakers too, they were told repeatedly that he was preying on their daughters and they did not take immediate action a lot of those times. Child endangerment. But that’s OK because Christ forgives Republican pedophiles, adulterers, and homosexuals.
You have no more idea what Josh Duggar has done over the past 12 years than than you had a clue about what he had done to his sisters before a couple of weeks ago.
He’s a fucking hypocrite that hangs with the other child molester, Ted Nugent.
Bill Clinton hangs with a pedophile. By association, so does Hillary.
Your point?
If you cared about pedophiles you wouldn’t defend Josh Duggar feeling up his 5 year old sister, what a sicko, him and you.
Conservatives are still railing about Monica Lewinski to this day, but they can forgive pedophiles in their own party. What a surprise!
Obama supports ISIS,the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islam with his policies.
Your point?
I support my Muslim allah Haley and her glorious raising of taxes! Tax everyone to death! Haley hu akbar! Haley hu akbar! LMAO!!!
Couple of things about the Social Security Administration:
One thing is most senior SSA employees do not contribute to the SS Trust Funds. In fact most (more than half) of all senior fed government employees do not contribute to the SSA Trust Funds. This is called the “forty quarter rule” meaning that after ten years of fed employment, the requirements for making contributions to The Funds is eliminated. Most of these people contribute to fed and state and other pension programs instead. (This “ruling” also applies to any and all Amtrac employees, Texas state educators, many Taxifornia educators and other state employees, many other states’ employees of various categories … and members of certain religious affiliations and more. It’s complicated, of course.)
Now if so many g’ment employees are not required to contribute and they do not have much skin in that game, guess what? Those fed, state and other employees don’t really care what happens to the SSA Trust Funds, or who gets them or who pays or who cares … All of those people will get their maximum SSA benefits and their fed, state and other pensions, no matter what any politician says.
And if They don’t want any, I don’t want any.
Wrong! It depends on what fed retirement system you are a part of. Civil Service System retirement was changed decades ago. Those folks are “dying out” as we speak. Those already a part of it could stay in it. The “new” system was FERS which applies to all new hires at the time of its decades ago implementation. Social Security is a part of it. Lets assume you were a CSRS retiree and earned 40 qtrs. of employment elsewhere. You do NOT get full social security benefits due to the GPO rule. You need to do some research before you spout off.
I did. I did back then too, having consulted to Social Security Admin. IT out here in the west. Eight months. I learned a whole lot about the Gruberment. Fur instance: The forty quarter rule still exists and every Gruberment employee knows it and knows how to get it.
(I was fired for pointing out several corrupt practices … One being SSA buying expensive high tech gear that was obsolete and just fattening g’ment employees’ “cash under the table” retirement program.)
Once again you miss the point. FERS went into effect in 1987. All new fed hires are in that system. Social Security is a mandatory part of that system. Those employees who were already on board in 1987 could keep the old system (CSRS) or switch. CSRS does not include Social Security. If you retire under CSRS you receive NO Social Security benefits. If you have 40 quarters of Social Security eligible employment elsewhere you can get Social Security. HOWEVER, your Social Security benefit will be severely reduced by imposition of what is called the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). Since FERS has been in effect for almost 30 years, there are very few CSRS employees left and the number of CSRS retirees is reduced due to death every day.
Prior to last election I did some research on SocialSecurity.gov – interesting. At that time the wording on the website specifically stated Social Security was set up as a benefit program. Fast forward 6 months or maybe a year later and the wording on that same site is entirely different.
I’m shocked! … The continuous Gruberization of g’ment web sites …
(There were congressional rules passed several years ago to stop the double dipping by g’ment employees, re: taking fed pensions and SS benefits … To no apparent avail. The whole g’ment burrocratic organism immediately found work-a-rounds. And then changed all public PR to reflect the newer, “improved” changes to the Forty Quarter Rules … Making it all “legal”, again. This is called propaganda or newspeak … and really more Gruberization and lies.)
Exactly! They “changed all public PR to reflect the newer, “improved” changes”
… and They did this without congress or El’ Presidente’.
I “think” they changed it when Obamacare came in to play. At that point it was ruled only constitutional as a tax, so everything is a tax now. Maybe it wasn’t tested before that ruling? That is when I noticed the change. It would be a contradiction and unconstitutional at that point to claim at as anything more than an “entitlement” ????
Huckabee is the best overall candidate running. The only problem I have with him is the fact that we can’t use the “young, fresh , new ideas” against Hillary with him. As to those who don’t like the Fair Tax that he supports, Get a life. It is the best tax fix out there. No more IRS, you only pay tax on what you buy, not what you earn. His common sense approach to world events is a breath of fresh air after all the BS of the last six years. Also his unfailing support of Israel is an added bonus. I personally think Walker is the most electable candidate we have because of the wide amount of approval without giving up our core principles and beliefs. I like Ted Cruz but I and my kind are only 10% of the GOP.
He is done.
And those are good choices. For certain, any of your suggestions would be better than what we have. And better than Hillary, fur sure.
I’ve began hearing from some of my friends in the black community that all is not sunshine and roses there.
You are correct.Turnout will be low in 2016-on the Democrat side in key states.My ‘travels’ take me south and out west. Increasing attacks on Christians are an attempt too depress and intimidate these voters.
Hillary is stuck at 45%-47%. Bush is the only ‘loser’ my political ‘pundits’ say.
Electoral landslide is possible for Republicans.
New documents prove Hillary Clinton censored YouTube video
Hillary aide contacted CEO of Google about blocked video
Quit calling it a fair tax and call it by its correct name which is a national sales tax (of which I’m NOT opposed to – in conjunction with a flat income tax)
You are just regurgitating that Tea Party branding shit due to being that “10%” of the GOP
If you can’t be honest and say what it is don’t post about it at all.
I suppose you can tell Rogue what to do and not do. I don’t expect him to pay you any mind.
Without a doubt “Rogue” can post all the rightwing nut branding propaganda he wants to……………….
That is what they call it Fairtax. Yes, it is a hybrid of consumption/flat tax, with a prebate last I checked, but I don’t think that is Tea Party branding. They have a website dedicated to Fairtax. I get emails all the time. I’m not an advocate of FairTax, but not necessarily an opponent either. The first time I ever heard the term FairTax, a far left leaning liberal was talking about it.
The Fair Tax come from the Fair Tax book which was published in 2005 predating the TEA Party by about 18 months.
Fits: “We like them both immensely on a personal level – and not just because they (like this website’s founding editor) are accomplished bass guitarists.”
———————————————
Are y’all so desensitized to Will’s boasting, that you let that statement pass without comment. Maybe I haven’t been here long enough, but has he ever posted video verifying the above claim? Come on Will post an example of your work. If it’s good I’ll retract everything bad I’ve said about you, which is everything I’ve ever said about you.
Too funny! “If it’s good I’ll retract everything bad I’ve said about you, which is everything I’ve ever said about you”
Why you always so angry? Maybe you need to douche out your stink pussy?
My tongue was firmly planted in my cheek when I posted that. I’m sure I would enjoy Will’s guitar playing.
Typical of some left leaning losers … They don’t every see the humor of it.
I have to admit I only recently started to see some sarcasm in what he says, but some of it is so in your face you know he’s joking. He says some positive things about Will, just not often ;)
Will is right when he says “Internet neutrality” is “a solution looking for a problem.” He’s right on school choice too.
Net neutrality is an excuse for the FCC to get their hands all over the internet so they can regulate it just like broadcast TV.
Rand Paul: Lindsey Graham “doesn’t rise beyond middle school kind of rhetoric” Paul blasts NSA, foreign policy and war hawks
Oouch!
Rand Paul needs to give it up – he will not be POTUS. Not on a Republican ticket nor Libertarian. Many who supported Ron Paul feel he was a sell out when he endorsed Romney. Many who are Republicans still remember some of his dad’s wacky ideas and believe, like father, like son. The best he can hope for is to divide the vote enough to get Hillary elected.
Rand could throw the election to the House of Representatives, which could get very interesting.
Ouch – haven’t considered that yet. Any opinions you want to share?
If Hilary is the Democrat Nominee she won’t attract the younger voters like Obama did.
If the Republicans nominate a less than charismatic candidate that can’t excite the base and can’t capture the younger voters, and Rand runs as an I or a L then and organized Rand movement could give him enough votes to keep either of the mainstream party candidates from getting to 270 electoral votes.
He would need to focus on anti-establishment leaning areas and colleges etc. If it get’s thrown to the house it becomes 1 state 1 vote.
Awww….thanks for that insightful info – seriously. Republicans do not have a charismatic candidate IMO. I am not impressed with any of them. Walker is probably the best I’ve seen, but I’m that impressed with Walker at this point. Hillary has the experience, but I’m not that impressed with her either. If he ran as an Independent or Libertarian, things could get very interesting.
Many of us thought Ron Paul would run as an Independent or Libertarian, but he didn’t. Maybe because he knew couldn’t win? Maybe because he thought his son might in the future? No one really knows, but it would make perfect sense than Rand would do just that.
Oddly, I am not opposed to that idea right now. I kinda like it. I hope both parties are paying attention and keep that in mind. It will certainly shake things up a bit and I am of the opinion things need to be shaken v. stirred.
That isn’t making sense to me – come on Twirls, how do you think he could throw the election to the House of Representatives? Don’t make dig or beg….LOL. Or is that sarcasm that has completely gone over my head. How could affect the HOR? He is a Senator, what am I missing?
I wouldn’t vote for Suckabee if he were the only candidate in the race. Four police officers died and a young girl was sexually assaulted because he insisted on showing the world what a great Christian he is by releasing a POS from prison early.
He let a lot of shitstains loose just because they gave him a sob story about accepting Christ and a lot of people paid for that. Imagine if he had that power over all 50 states!
Exactly!!!! He would make former TN Governor Ray Blanton look like Judge Roy Bean when it came to end of term pardon time.
Before you spew out info, you might want to check your facts with Gov Mike Huckabee. He most likely has more experience balancing budgets on a state level than critics do. During the 10 years as Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee was under state law to balance the state budget or become a felon ! I’m fully support Gov Mike Huckabee For President 2016 !!!
I’m Chester the Molester and I approve this message.
Makes you wonder if Josh was involved in any youth groups in his church? Did they know? Better start asking some of the kids if they’ve been touched by an “angel” in the past…
So, you think a governor is great because their state – like all I know of – is required by state law to balance the budget?
That’s a pretty low bar, don’t you think?
And, you don’t think a legislature, the people who actually vote to appropriate the money, have anything to do with a budget being balanced?
While I can find very few reason to beat up on Huckabee, he has not, over the years even slightly rung my political bell.
That’s why I don’t beat up on him – he just doesn’t do anything to qualify hitting my radar of thought.
Nothing hits ‘your radar of thought’ except whining about how the military fucked you over and being a fucking lousy mom posting on Fits 24/7.
Call them asshat, let them show up at my door, I’ll know who called and you will be exposed, not me – you. Why? You got nothing on me. Nothing, zero, zilt. Why? Nothing to be had. So keep harping on your lame ass accusations and please by all means expose yourself. I’m looking forward to that day. Really.
I liked your better when you spread the BS that I worked for FBI – thank your lucky stars I don’t, because you would be out of business. That isn’t to say if you cross lines, you won’t be. I’ve never narced (as you call it) before, but I will protect my family from the likes of you – COUNT ON IT.
grow up
Flip’s too mentally challenged to do that.
Mike Huckabee is the most qualified to be the next POTUS. If you factor in fair tax, fair trade agreements and allowing businesses to function we will afford Medicare and social security.
He’s an angry bigot. That means he has no qualifications to be POTUS.
How do you vote? Do you vote based on your personal values? What is best for society as a whole? What is best for your future generations, even when they clash with personal values? This is a puzzle to me, because when I vote, I don’t necessarily vote based on my personal values/standards, but more of a holistic picture, as best as I can. I don’t know how everyone else decides and would love any feedback.
Absolutely no one that is not staunchly pro 2nd amendment, after that test it boils down to who will do the least damage to the country i.e. lesser of the two evils. If I can’t of good conscience vote for the red/blue; left/right candidates I will vote Libertarian or Independent. Baring that I will write in the name of a friend of family member that is qualified, except for president where you can’t vote write-in in South Carolina.
I am pro 2nd amendment and probably my biggest concern, but not hawkish nor stingy. I don’t really vote single issue. Military is one of my stronger votes, but I am more middle of the road on spending – not too much, not too little, but enough to maintain leadership. Yep that ugly word, I want America to continue to lead.
I look at the field of candidates and issues. I ponder which issues I am willing to compromise. I struggle with single issues. I end up with strange bed fellows as a result. I often wonder why.
Maybe voters are single issue? And everything else hinges from there. I feel like a walking contradiction sometimes, because my life and my views are not the same. What is good for me, is not necessarily good for another.
I feel like I am passing through this life and hope to leave it at least as good, hopefully better for the next generation. My day of worry is limited, but tomorrow is so unpredictable.
Thank you for replying. I know most here are heavy into politics, while I am an amateur at best. I appreciate you taking the time to respond and look forward to any thoughts you care to share.
Like!!!! ^What he said.^
To which I would add that if the candidate appears to be blatantly corrupt, either by deed, association, or both, even if they claim to be Pro 2-A, they will not get my vote. Candidates of questionable integrity who clain to be pro gun include but aren’t limited to Haley, Joe Wilson, and more. Haley hasn’t done shit to promote or otherwise encourage passage of Pro 2-A legssedislation, even though she will sign such bills if passed. Has Uncle Joe done anything in the past ten years or more for anyone other than eat, drink, shit, and get richer? Oh, he told the truth when he said Obama lied but so did a lot of us. BFD!
I saw Huck ‘play bass’ on Fox…Accomplished ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SffaWn0Oc8g
Paul Ryan’s math doesn’t add up either. Is FITS going to do an article on that too? Granted, he isn’t running for POTUS, but still.
Huckabee simply isn’t electable on a national stage. End of story. I’m not even remotely concerned with his viewpoints. He’s on the same scale as Rick Santorum.
He helps keep the theocratic wing of the GOP in line/in the party…but the establishment would never let him in the top office for a variety of reasons and there aren’t enough hardcore theocrats in the GOP electorate to give him enough primary wins.