LOL!

I applaud your ability to string together so seamlessly every overly-simplistic, trite cliche of right wing rhetoric. A masterful job of creative writing.

It's nice to finally see some conservative viewpoints on these pages, kneejerk angry rehtoric to the contrary notwithstanding. Some folks want to rely on the government because they are simply unable to rely on themselves. unfortunately, these people have enablers. They call themselves the Deomcrats.

"misplaced charity destroys all incentive, incentive destroys all misplaced charity."- joseph p.martino

Actually, entitlement programs are 61% of the budget, which includes 7% for veterans assistance (who are apparently just more freeloaders by your definition):
<http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258>;

The conservative mind simply resents anyone else having anything of value, pure and simple. There's no room for compassion in the conservative world.

Not sure why social security is included as an entitlement. I'll have paid into the social security system for 56 years by the time I "retire".

Those 58% of adults who don't earn a paycheck would include 18 year old high school seniors, college students, retirees, and folks like me who don't earn a paycheck but live on dividends, capital gains, and rental income. Just to be fair, Mitt Romney would fall into that "doesn't earn a paycheck" category since his income is from souces other than earned income.

What is this? Friedrich Hayek for children? Where does Patch find these clowns?

Social Security is an entitlement program? If so, it's because we are ENTITLED to what we paid into! As for every other "entitlement" program...where did the government get the money to fund them? I'll wait...

During a time of record high oil prices and record profits among oil companies, Congress gave subsidies to oil companies worth $30 billion over five years. They receive $5.4 billion in subsidies for exploration and an additional $4.7 billion for the depletion of discovered wells. Yet the oil companies receiving these subsidies have seen huge profits: Exxon Mobil at $36 billion; Chevron at $189 billion; Conoco Phillips at $166 billion; and Valero Energy at $81 billion. Let's get real!

I'm glad to see Penna challenging the left's domination of media in Essex County. The reality is the idea that we can keep borrowing to pay for social programs that started to really get out of control with LBJ needs to end if we are to have a prosperous 21st Century.

Amen to that. As Ronald Reagan said "generosity is a reflection of what one does with their money and not what they advocate the government do with everyone else's money." Liberals say conservatives have no compassion. I disagree. Entitlement programs only keep people down. Read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt - people need to learn about free markets. With that said, the silent majority is starting to get loud and change the tone. Liberals have no compassion.

And Jean, money does not come from government. Therefore a subsidy is nothing more then a company getting its own money back from the government! I want companies to be successful and rich people to be rich. I have never gotten a job from a poor person.

I could never really get into politics. It seems like they've wrecked the country.

Interesting how some of the peanut gallery dismisses the entire article -- including the statistics it cites -- as "right wing rhetoric," without providing any rebuttal. Calling the author names was a nice touch, too.

Well stated. Sue Ann makes a valid point in that the road to Surfudom a book that was written in the 1940's rings true about 70 yeas after it was written.

If it really did ring true, given its 70 year lead, you would think that "surfudom" would have established itself in more places than just the beaches of California and Hawaii.

I still question calling Social Security an "entitlement program". I also contribute to a pension and a 401K - are they "entitlement programs" as well? I am entitled to collect on what I contribute to - or is it only the wealthy that are entitled?

Jon- a subsidy is a company getting MY money back from the government.

I want there to be a safety net for people - no child should be hungry and denied a decent place to live and schooling.

Growing up there were plenty of days that we went without or had government peanut butter or cheese for dinner. I'm sorry but I can't harken back to the time when my family had no health insurance, dental care and little to eat while we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps!

What is funny is that the serfdom the author warns against is a red herring waved in front of people who, if not for the government, would very likely be serfs under unfettered corporate oligarchies. The article is not especially insightful as one poster noted. Just a collection of conservative talking points. Things we have all heard before. The problem is most Americans have a very limited memory. You guys had eight years in power!!! Remember???? How'd that work out? Unfunded Wars. Cronyism and a trip off an economic abyss that the world still has not recovered from.

The road to serfdom is a very powerful book about the path into socialism and the history of it in other nations. Not sure what beaches your talking about. Maybe you should read the book before commenting on the book.

Portmanteau is just a lost soul. You have to get past party and look at ideology. Not all republicans nor all democrats are great. And a corporation cannot use force to take your money, only government can do that.

I guess you've never heard of surfing. Was this article a book review?

Almost all of the oil subsidies you are talking about are nothing but tax provisions written into the tax code to get their money back. And if you don't like so many tax provisions then maybe we should not elect politicians that do nothing but try to regulate.

Previous to even the Great Depression and in spite of the fantasy image of strong family, community and church dealing with all personal need, the truth is that before Social Security, 80% of the elderly fell into extreme poverty and depravation beyond solution.

Social Security has been an extremely successful program as has Medicare. It is in fact a very successful form of self-reliance. -Paid for by individuals during their working years with paybacks that then allow them to be free from unreliable financial institutions and NOT RELY ON THE CHARITY of non-existent or perhaps unreliable family members or a church or local community that they have no wish or ability to be a part of.

Where is the "self-reliance" if you are dependent on the vagaries of family, local community or church? Why is the term "government program" such a term of derision if it is a program that works well?

The truth is that most people do desire and work to be self-reliant and generally are so right up until they are not and then most often for reasons beyond their cause or control.

I agree with those who object to anyone referring to Social Security as an entitlement. I have worked full-time since the age of 18. I took out loans and was fortunate enough to get scholarships in order to finish my college education, but I had to work for my room and board. No help from mom or dad because their priorities were the boys. That was the mentality in the late 60s and early 70s. I would be willing to go to war to protect Social Security from the Wall Street vultures and financiers who want to privatize this program. Those of us who have contributed to Social Security are indeed entitled to reap the benefits. I cannot speak for welfare recipients or individuals who have five or six children when they can hardly afford to support one. I speak for myself and those of us who have worked very hard for what we have. Unless a government takes care of its people and shows compassion toward the elderly and those who through no fault of their own have fallen on hard times, what is the point of being a citizen of any nation-state? As to churches, let's not forget they are TAX EXEMPT! Unfortunately, many "religious" people engage in politics despite the fact that they do not pay taxes and are in clear violation of the law. As Mr. Sullivan states, most individuals, except parasites, do want to work and be self-reliant. Without Social Security, we might as well tell people to join the millions of homeless and starve to death.

What makes Social Security in its current form an "entitlement program" is that beginning at some date certain, not sure when, but certain it has occurred, the average payout from Social Security became higher than the average lifetime payout into social security. From that point since, actuarially, the payout obligations under the social security system have become and will continue to become exponentially higher than the average person paid into the system. That is why it is currently an "entitlement" program because people feel they are "entitled" to the lifetime payouts upon retirement regardless of how much they paid into it.

Moreover, beginning with Hillary and Obama in 2008, there was talk of eliminating the cap on social security contributions, currently capped at $110,000 (and raised each year). Thus, effectively, creating a 6.4% (prior to the recent 2% "tax holiday") additional tax on the "wealthiest Americans". Add to this, current Republican calls for "means testing" of social security payouts and you have the makings of a colossal entitlement program wherein the "wealthiest Americans" will support actuarially skewed lifetime payouts far beyond those contributed by the average social security recipient.

(Part 2)

This does not even take into account the fact that there is no Social Secuirty "trust fund", which was statutorily prescribed by the Social Security Act. Rather, the entire system is an unfunded obligation of the federal government and comprises the largest expenditure of the federal government. Thus you have a system of unruly lifetime payouts going to people, funded by current contributions of people. This is precisely what a Ponzi scheme is. The Social Security System is, therefore, an "entitlement program" and wil be for the foreseeable future, unless we are willing to cut off payments to folks in their 80s once their contributed amounts run out.

Sue Ann- you contradict yourself many times in your own writing. How can you say that woman portrayed on Obama's website was handed everything to her without working hard? She went to college with a grant that helped her financially but doesn't mean she didn't work hard in school. She received a small business grant to help her get her business started but doesn't mean she didn't work hard. You said these programs destroy innovation and the drive to succeed but contradicting your theory- she went to college and put up a business.. the programs encouraged and facilitated- not the opposite as you argue. Plus, small businesses drive the economy and creates jobs in the process. Your whole interpretation of this woman is wrong. Lastly, how can you say that a broken family- someone whose parents are not together or around.. is the governments fault? Theres simply no connection in your reasoning- what so ever.

given the number of errors in the original article, I have rewritten it translating it into ordinary English :

"me me me me mine mine me mine argh me me mine THEM me mine they me me me me me me mine mine mine mine mine government mine mine mine them me those mine mine mine mine"

I think Sue Ann's heart is in the right place and that she's talking about some high level overview without knowing someone who has fallen through the safety barrier.

I would much rather support the needy via the government than require them to join a church and rely on the kindness of strangers or the community to hold things together. There needs to be a safety net that is supplied no matter what church or community group you have joined.

I say this as someone who is active in the community who has also fallen through the safety net - and still remains active.

FYI - You don't have to be a member of a church or organization to receive some kind of benefit or charity from that organization.

Ramon - that is one of the best summaries of social security I have heard in a while. Good job.

@Jon Where do I go to get put on the list to benefit?

The War on Poverty....40 years and $40 trillion dollars later...WE LOST!

The nation of Chile "Privatized" social security and now they are getting a positive return and are quite happy with it. That is called "Choice"...that is called "Freedom." But evidently there are people who want BOTH and will eventually settle for NEITHER! Of Chilehad a dictator named Allende (sp) kill thousands of them before this all happened. But what the heck...re-elect Obama and maybe we will get there. A Second American Revolution is sorely needed.

@Pat - Well it seems you want to sit on a list and just get benefits.... I'm afraid that's what a lot of people in this country want to do. But how about trying the Red Cross first. There are many food banks and clothing drives all over the area and all over the country. Our call a Church and they can help you too. And guess what you don't have to be a member! I guarantee they will help you! If you really need help I can more specifically help you out but for some reason I think you are doing just fine. So don't be naive Pat.

Need further proof that the teaparty is in its death spiral? Just like the schoolyard bully who picks on the weakest child, the only thing these false prophets seem to do is blame the poor, the disabled, and the elderly for all of their troubles. Read your Matthew 25, and if you don't understand it the first time read it again.

Further proof? Like the proof that the tea party actually elected members of congress? Created a Tea Party caucus? Influenced hundreds of elections. Or do you mean death spiral like the occupy protesters planning to blow up bridges? Maybe you mean that kind of death and you meant to say Occupy. Because those are full of rapists, sexual assaulters, etc.... real winners.

John, ask me this. Why are conservatives always more generous with their own money? While liberals seem to be super generous with someone else's money? Who really cares for the poor, disabled and elderly? Yeah, that's the conservative mind. And I'm tired of this message being the other way around so Tea Party conservatives aren't going to take it anymore. Maybe we should start using your name calling tactics too.

Did I miss something? Where is the name calling in anything I posted?

"schoolyard bully" is probably what he'[s reacting to.

Jon...look up in your Bible whee the only social justification for welfare at that time was widows and orphans. Also......there was no social security....children took in their elderly parents, and for that matter...the Bible also refers to the "Wisdom found on the gray hairs on a man's head." Only heathen cultures worshipped youth. But stay cool...we are getting there! Also...The Silent Majority IS the Tea Party. You don't have to attend a meeting to be ticked off.

What does the bible and religion have to do with whether or not we want a safety network for the weakest amongst us?

I favor a standard that is accross ALL of these United States not just relying on the Churches and the few good people who will open their wallets and hearts to the poor and needy. Should poor children in Irvington go unfed while poor children in Montclair are fed because the community has more money and more people to volunteer their time?
NO!

We should help the poor and people that need it. I just believe you need to rethink where that should come from and what is more efficient. State or local government and yes churches and other organizations can do a much better job than a massive federal entitlement program. I do not believe a doctor in Idaho should be paying to help out a poor child in Irvington if he doesn't want to. And you believe that doctor should be forced to through taxes. And then our politicians will decide whether or not it goes to that poor child. I believe problems can be solved much better and much much more efficiently at the local level. We need to get back to this.

Surfing is fun. Sue Ann, well. Not so much.

Sue Ann is running for some office. Note the cheesy patriotic portrait shot. She figured hey conservativism is sooooo hot right now.....