>>>>>>>Maybe before creating another entitlement program country should firstly figure out what to do with other entitlements that may bring it down in not so distant future?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ed,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Isn't it beautiful how lobbyists have created the term "entitlement program" and succeeded in having the people turn on themselves. The lobbyists have made "entitlement" the second worst word in America, just behind "liberal".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The lobbyists have one single goal in mind - to get more money for themselves. This is harder to achieve when a whole boodle of money is going to THE PEOPLE for things they have demanded from their government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We should ALL first have the give-aways to corporations curtailed/eliminated, then see where finances stand. My bet is that there'd be plenty of money for what THE PEOPLE need/want.
>>>>>>Apparently just de-subsidizing corn would provide tons of money to the treasury. And it is mainly the large agri-business corporations that benefit from this. There are likely THOUSANDS of similar examples.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Time to ressurect the good old term "corporate welfare" and make that the FIRST item on any agenda to eliminate things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Let me decide myself what to demand from my government and accordingly it would be better if you will not use the word 'we'. It's not correct by 2 occasions. Firstly, we have different governments and secondly we have different priorities.
>>>>>I don't know where you give your tax money, and it is certainly not my business. However, I know pretty good that my tax money mostly go to government-sponsored handouts, aka entitlements.
>>>>
>>>>OK. But it is so that my government does very similarly to yours except on a smaller scale. That's why I felt "we" was appropriate.
>>>>
>>>>Here's 2 quotes I found (undated, unfortunately) that may be of interest to you, both apparently taken from a series in the "Boston Globe":
>>>>"The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It's more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)."
>>>>"After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget." .
>>>>So while much of your tax money may go to "government sponsored handouts" TO PEOPLE, there's even more of the state's (i.e. federal government) money that goes to corporations. Imagine what the U.S. could be like if that money went where it belonged!
>>>
>>>As I already mentioned it's a case of philosophical distinction. Basically, I don't consider tax benefits as a handout. The fair value for any tax is zero, so if government grabs lesser part it's a welcome development in my world.
>>
>>Then why do you accept that corporations get the tax breaks but not you (i.e. THE PEOPLE)?????
>>Corporations are special and people are not????
>
>It's because I'm not envious, or at least I try to not be one.

Hmmm. You sound very envoius to me. Your statement "However, I know pretty good that my tax money mostly go to government-sponsored handouts, aka entitlements." combined with "The fair value for any tax is zero, so if government grabs lesser part it's a welcome development in my world." suggest that you would prefer to pay $0 taxes and support any that manage to.
You are also firm in your conviction that those who are poor get first class medical services through Medicaid. Combine with your first statement above I see envy there, big time.