If college students can be on their parents health insurance until age 26, shouldn't the 26th amendment be revised to say age 30? A related question, if 18 year olds are mature enough to vote why are they not mature enough to buy a beer until they are 21? The 24th amendment should also be repealed, why should people getting government handouts be able to vote for more handouts?

And this is why the conservatives and Tea Party backed Representatives, no matter how they try, will fail to acheive any significant reductions in the deficit, and why they will likely be cast out of Congress in the next election for trying to cut back the benefits to which the majority of voters believe they are entitled.

Howard, please stop that. You are making sense.

Our Constitution, contrary to popular belief, allowed only land holders or businessmen to vote. ANYONE who fit either of the above categories could vote regardless of age, race or religion.

The franchise was extended to everyone through often debatle or deplorable means.

Right now, anyone, regardless of race, religion or sex over the age of eighteen can vote, even if you are dependent on the State for your livliehood.

How can we expect a body politic infested with parasites to vote to kill entitlements or programs that provide their living resources?

I would say that the only thing necessary to vote should be an income tax return showing that you PAID taxes. Then you have a dog in the fight and get to decide who best represents your thoughts on how your money should be spent.

A recent article in the local paper highlighted that state monies for college would be cut for the coming year. One student complained mightily that she would actually have to get a job to pay for tuition.

Mr. Prager gets it!

Socialcommuliberals do not.

They only encourage dependency because without it, they are out of a job.

I say to those unindustrious, welfare state professionals: sweep a floor, shovel chicken crap, pick tomatoes, flip burgers, or do whatever you have to do to be self-sufficient, independent and free.

There is no dishonor in these jobs; they provide a needed service in our society and country.

Earn a living to pay your own way and become proud again to be a hard-working, industrious human-being.

Get up, break the chains of nanny-state, and get to work, where ever that work might be.

"It is depressing to listen to that applause. To be told that one can be dependent on one's parents until age 26 should strike a young person who wants to grow up as demeaning, not as something to celebrate."

I am employed, however, do you have ANY idea how hard it is to find a job that provides adequate health coverage straight out of college? None of you do, hence why you'll never understand these college student's applause.

"cut back the benefits to which the majority of voters believe they are entitled."

If I pay into a system over a course of a time, I'm pretty sure I am entitled to the benefits which I've paid into...You wouldn't buy a car if you couldn't drive it. I pay, I shall receive and utilize...that's called consumption in economic terms.

Rings true, doesn't it? I recently conversed with a couple of twenty-somethings. They espouse libertarian views but commit no personal responsibility to go with their desired liberty. And, they kept clattering on about the military industrial complex and the conspiracy of the rich, ad nauseum. The conversation was discouraging, for it was a repeat of other conversations I've had with the children of the most selfish generation (Boomers).

Freedom is lost.

"I say to those NONindustrial, welfare state professionals: sweep a floor, shovel chicken crap, pick tomatoes, flip burgers, or do whatever you have to do to be self-sufficient, independent and free. "

perform any of those tasks and just TRY to receive adequate healthcare, cover your expenses, and attempt to create a decent living...YOU CAN'T!

Only those paying income taxes should be allowed to vote. Students today are indoctrinated, not educated, and are worthless upon graduation. If this country doesn't do something on deadbeats voting and teachers uniion indoctrination, then the limited Freedom we "enjoy" today will be but a footnote in History. We are loosing our Republic.

Mr. Bradley is correct in that no matter what the Tea Party does, the movement will have no lasting impact on the deficit. This is because both political parties' main goal is to perpetuate their reign. The way do that is to buy off the electorate with spending, tax cuts, or other favors not promoting fiscal responsibility. The way we break this cycle is with term limits.

We saw this in WI. The public union members could not see past their "right" to screw the tax payer, to see the good of all, even though their acts would mean some of their own would lose all. It is just Me,Me,Me.

Thanks for the article and the comments! These give me hope that at least there are some others that get it and by reading this it helps me to stay strong amidst the barrage of entitlement philosophies being hurled at us. Thank you thank you thank you!

Bob:

"I am employed, however, do you have ANY idea how hard it is to find a job that provides adequate health coverage straight out of college? None of you do, hence why you'll never understand these college student's applause."

Why does Bob assume that people who oppose the welfare state are wealthy fat-cats who have never struggled? My wife and I are lower-middle class, blue collar people. Most of the folks we know have no college education. Yet, a clear majority of Americans strongly oppose Socialized medicine. According to "Bob," that means most Americans are selfish, silver-spoon types who just want others to suffer. Ridiculous.

Why does Bob believe that because it's supposedly hard to find health care after college (the man is complaining that those with college degrees now can't support themselves!) that entitles him to take the fruits of other people's labors for himself. They worked for it but do not receive it, while Bob and his ilk did not work for it but expect to receive it anyway.

Bob apparently believes there is a magic money tree supplying endless cash to pay for all this "free" stuff. Either that or he is so horribly deluded that he actually believes a "free" government program really is free. Sorry, Bob. SOMEBODY has to pay for it all. You just don't want it to be you. You think you can whine and stamp your feet like a 3-year old until somebody else is forced to pay for your stuff. Life doesn't work that way, pal.

""cut back the benefits to which the majority of voters believe they are entitled."

If I pay into a system over a course of a time, I'm pretty sure I am entitled to the benefits which I've paid into...You wouldn't buy a car if you couldn't drive it. I pay, I shall receive and utilize...that's called consumption in economic terms."

Bob is deceiving himself by pretending that those who receive welfare state benefits are paying for them, so why not use them. Bob is hoping nobody will do the math and discover that when a family consumes $20,000 worth of health care (a generously conservative figure, obviously), $6,000 worth of Food Stamps, $12,000 worth of subsidized housing, $1,000 worth of heating assistance, and all the other goodies the welfare state provides, even if Bob is "working poor" (which would be odd if he's got a college degree, wouldn't we all agree?) there is no possible way he pays $40,000 in taxes. OTOH, if he DOES pay $40,000 in taxes his income disqualifies him from these services anyway.

In other words, Bob, those who DO pay for the services cannot qualify to receive the services. Except for Obamacare, of course. But as Bob is surely aware if he's paid even casual attention during the last 2 years, Obamacare is not "free," as the Democrats claimed. In fact, it's one whopping monster of an expensive "benefit." Bob will need to pay premiums, and they are not going to be cheap. At best, Obamacare will be repealed and destroyed, but in the event it's ever implemented Bob will discover to his horror that his premiums will be pretty much the same as they were before -- except now services will be dramatically curtailed. Nice going Bob. Your selfish "gimme" attitude made a very bad system unimaginably worse.

But then, Socialism ALWAYS does that.

BTW, Bob...if it's so hard to earn a living today, you must have cut way back on your lifestyle, huh? I bet you had to give up your digital cable with HD and DVR, right? I bet you had to give up the house too -- yknow, the one with the second mortgage that came out to 125% of the market value of the house? Yeah that one. And I'll bet you had to give up your iPhone with its $240/mo cell phone bill. Oh, and the second car. Bet that had to go. And the game consoles. Had to cut back on those too, huh? And the in-ground pool. Can't afford that anymore.

Can't afford those things because you have to pay for your health care, right?

What's that, Bob? You didn't cut back ANY of those things? Yet you expect everyone else to pay for your health care? Wow. Isn't that pretty much Dennis Prager's point in this column, that it's the Liberals who are the selfish, greedy turds in this equation? You want to keep your pillow-top lifestyle and force everyone else to pay for your essentials because you won't give up any luxuries. Go to hell, Bob. I've got a wife and kids to support and they need my money a whole lot more than you do. Want to know why? Because it's MINE. I EARNED it. Not you. Stop your whining, grow a pair of cajones and act like a man, if you know how.

Let me help you clear things up Bob: If health insurance costs too much and medical care costs too much and gasoline costs too much, the answer is NOT to have the taxpayer or your parents cover it for you. To put it another way, yes, I believe health care and health insurance in this country needs to be reformed, HOWEVER, a law that says "everyone must have health insurance or face a stiff monetary penalty and parents must cover their adult children until age 26" is not reform. If you believe it to be so, you need to go back to your Funk 'n Wagnall's and look up the definition of reform. What we need is less insurance regulation and tort law reform so a doctor can't be sued for $250,000 just for lancing the wrong boil. THAT'S real reform.

@MichaelSSEC

WELL SAID SIR!!! (insert thunderous applause here) Couldn't have said it better myself.

Hey Bob..

Why should the folks that give you a job - control your access to health insurance? Don't get stuck in a crappy job just for health insurance. Try a HSA - that Health Savings Account - along with a high deductible policy. Since you are young and presumably healthy - it will be affordable and the HSA part is yours forever - tax deductible ( until Obamacare outlaws it -because it works! ), and goes with you if you want to tell the boss to take his job and shove it.

HSA's do not require a "group". They are part of the solution to the many problems in Healthcare - most of which were caused by government regulation and will not be solved by more government.

Your comments are so prejudicial but I will try to put some sense to your comments. First we are not a welfare state nor do the people want to be taken care of. I for one don't mind paying for my way. There is no such thing as a totaly free society nor is unfettered capitalism a viable option. That is Darwinian society of the survival of the strongest. Capitalism is fine as long as there are restraints on the monopolies and there is laws against the very thing that brought down our economy in 2007. the repeal of the Glass Stengal act was the down fall. Free enterprise works when we all are on an equal field. If you believe that no regulation is required then you would also believe that we need no police nor fire fighters because we are capable of taking care of ourselves. Texas thought it was capable of taking care of its self until it started burning and then cried out for help. We are a society that looks out for each other not a draconian society that is only self serving. This country in 1796 established the Act to take care of diabled seaman. Just because we help those that cannot help thenselves does not mean it is socialism. If you are able bodied you must work or go to a homeless shelter there is no welfare for able bodied people, that is myth. I hope your world you envision never materializes because it sounds like the gates of hell to me.

Bob - Been there. My first job out of college did not provide health insurance and (as a cancer survivor) I couldn't buy it on my own whether I could afford it on my salary or not. (Answer was not.) So, I worked hard and GOT A BETTER JOB that did provide health insurance.

@Roy Merritt

You conflate many issues, but my main take-away is this: You need to get a clue about America's core principles.

You seem to think that using government power to force money from your fellow citizens is the same a individual charity. It isn't!

If I hold you up at gunpoint to obtain money for some disadvantaged soul, I will go to jail -- no matter how seemingly noble my motive. America's founding document says the government derives its power from the people. So how can the government have the power to take money from me to benefit some other citizen that it deems "more worthy"? If none of us, acting as individuals, can force money from its rightful owner, we can't possibly have delegated such a power to the government.

Don't get me wrong. I am grateful that my fellow citizens and I have arranged for a public street at the end of my driveway. I like the idea that police and firemen and the US military provide protection. These benefits are available to all citizens (i.e., they provide for the "general welfare").

The government arbitrarily deciding when someone has earned "more than enough" and taking the excess is nothing by legalized theft. To deny that modern America is a welfare state is out of touch with reality. The dominant theme in Progressive politics -- from each according to his means, to each according to his needs -- is pure socialism and can only lead to the out-of-control government we see in Washington every day.

thank you M Rick Timms, MD for actually responding in a kind manner.

MichaelSSEC is clearly a jackass who has made up his mind...you made assumptions all along the way and completely changed my point.

I have a great job and great benefits, i worked for it. I'm not talking about other people, I'm pointing out, "if i pay for social security now at this point in my life, i damn sure better be able to utilize it later." What if I lose my job? I've been paying into the system, I'm going to use unemployment seeing as it's technically jobless insurance.

Don't twist my words nor construe my argument. As someone who is middle-class, has good benefits, etc, I am not being selfish. I'm just stating, when and if the time comes, I'm going to utilize the programs which I've been paying into up until this time.

JGray

-I completely, agree. Work harder, get a better job...that's the risk/reward payoff of free-market capitalism. However, the point I was trying to make is: right out of college it is difficult to land that job w/ good benefits, during that time what if your health fails? You have been trying, it's not like you are being lazy, you are doing what society asks of you. There ARE cases which this falls into, it's not like everyone is a lazy selfish bum. However, you should realize that the job market is more competitive than ever and more work does not equate more success, the world's changed

Thank you very much for my military retirement pension. I'm very grateful to my nation for my monthly entitlement. I also appreciate my ridiculously low ($230 per YEAR), government run health care premiums. Or, should I be scared? By your logic, should I be cut off too? I'm not selfish, am I?

CapitalistDad, I agree completely with your post. I think that an equal error is committed on the other side of the coin.

It is not possible for any government to commit a virtuous act. As citizens, we are not more virtuous when our government gives money, health care, or anything else to those "in need". Only individuals can have virtue.

As a nation, we can enact any laws allowed by the Constitution, and amend the Constitution to allow more laws, if we choose. It is not that we cannot use the instruments of government to provide for the neediest among us. However, to do so is to preclude real virtue and replace it with something immoral. That is at least as great a tragedy as the financial travesty of robbing from (taxing) the rich.

MichaelSSEC- Thank you for saying what I wanted to say, but thought my efforts would not avail anything for Bob. The only thing I want to disagree with is your spelling of cojones. My spelling means testicles. Yours means wallpaper, or something innocuous like that. You were dead on with your comments. Excellent post.

Perhaps the new national motto should be;

Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie....a sad comment on our society today.

@Mike - "It is not possible for any government to commit a virtuous act . . . " I would agree, but by the same token, I would argue that no government should be judged "immoral". You can't have it both ways.

Bob moves the goal posts because his original argument failed miserably, so he tries to be more reasonable the second go-round:

"I have a great job and great benefits, i worked for it."

Bob's original argument was that Conservatives have no idea how hard it is for college graduates to get good jobs with health insurance. The idea clearly was to assert that Conservatives have never struggled, whereas people who have struggled understand why it's okay to steal money from others.

"I'm not talking about other people, I'm pointing out, "if i pay for social security now at this point in my life, i damn sure better be able to utilize it later.""

Nobody was talking about Social Security, but now Bob suddenly interjects that into the conversation because it's been pointed out to him that the argument "you pay for these welfare benefits, you might as well use them," is complete nonsense. So he's trying to change the subject to something entirely different, hoping readers aren't smart enough to notice. He's wrong about that too.

"What if I lose my job?"

You get another job, just like people have been doing forever. Losing your job does not entitle you to steal money from someone else.

"I've been paying into the system, I'm going to use unemployment seeing as it's technically jobless insurance."

"Technically," or in reality, makes no difference. It's nothing of the sort. Insurance is a payment you make to cover your financial losses against possible risks. YOU don't pay for unemployment. Your employer does. And in the old days when unemployment benefits lasted 13 weeks, the fund into which your employer paid every week was used to pay the unemployment benefits of those who got laid off for whatever reason. That was much closer to what the concept of "insurance" means.

What we have today is NOT insurance. In the first place, three flipping YEARS of benefits is outrageous. If I hear one more person state that they don't want to start immediately a new job they are offered, but would prefer to wait a couple of weeks because their unemployment benefits expire then, I will scream. This current system is CREATING unemployment.

Moreover, employers no longer simply pay into the system every week, and then that money is used to fund UE benefits. Now, when you collect UE, your last employer gets stuck with a nice fat bill for your benefits. In other words, money he could be and would be using to grow his company and hire new workers is being stolen to pay for UE benefits for employees who haven't worked for him in THREE YEARS. Bob, in his astonishing ignorance, actually thinks that's "insurance."

"Don't twist my words nor construe my argument."

Nobody twisted Bob's words, as anyone who reads the exchange can plainly see. I simply refused to permit Bob to delude readers with his dishonest appraisal of economics, and instead presented the realities behind the foolishness Bob believes. He is rightly offended by that, since nobody likes to have their comfortable delusions shattered. Too bad.

"As someone who is middle-class, has good benefits, etc, I am not being selfish. I'm just stating, when and if the time comes, I'm going to utilize the programs which I've been paying into up until this time."

Bob has never once -- EVER -- paid a dime to unemployment "insurance." Not once in his entire life, UNLESS he owned a business that employed other people. So his argument that he's merely utilizing the benefits he's already paid for is nothing but self-serving, disingenuous rationalization. It has no basis in fact or reality, but it sure makes Bob feel about stealing from his fellow citizens.

But now Bob will again move the goalposts and claim he was only talking about Social Security, when in fact he spent the entirety of his rebuttal talking about UE. It is true, employees do pay into the SS system and are entitled to the benefits of that system. But neither the column by Mr. Prager nor Bob's self-deluded comment, nor his desperate and confused rebuttal talked about Social Security.

We can learn a few things from Bob, however. The lack of comprehension of how these things are paid for, how they destroy our self-worth and self-respect, how they train citizens to accept dependence as "normal," and how Leftists use these programs to essentially buy votes, is expressed quite well in Bob's pleas for acceptance. He needs to convince readers that he really does have a "right" to take other people's money, when he has not worked for it, has not earned it and has no valid claim to it. If he can convince others, he will not need to convince himself. And his conscience will not need to be mollified.

Takers, users -- call them whatever is suitable, but if we call them victims we must also declare what it is they are victims OF. And that is Leftist economic failure -- the welfare state. Users like Bob ARE victims, but not of Capitalism. Bob is a victim of the victimhood mentality.

-I completely, agree. Work harder, get a better job...that's the risk/reward payoff of free-market capitalism. However, the point I was trying to make is: right out of college it is difficult to land that job w/ good benefits, during that time what if your health fails? You have been trying, it's not like you are being lazy, you are doing what society asks of you. There ARE cases which this falls into, it's not like everyone is a lazy selfish bum. However, you should realize that the job market is more competitive than ever and more work does not equate more success, the world's changed

Re: William Fraley

I'll take it that you are a 20+ year retired military man and not instead being a cynical mole. Hopefully it is the former.

Nonetheless, if you are a 20+ year former active duty, now retired military member, you have more than earned your pension and limited benefits.

When I and many others joined the military many years ago, we were "promised" free health care for life if we committed ourselves, our families, and our lives, to the military way of life. That was changed, over the years by liberal trying to rip more taxes to give to others. As well, they are talking about increasing these fees considerably. I would argue why this would be a severe injustice, but it would take me a lengthy diatribe.

Compared to all these other unions, states, and federal Cadillac retirement plans, we are the retired poor in this country.

I say anyone who complains about your military pension, and your $230 yearly military health care, should shut their mouths and join up. Serve our country, away from family, friends, hometowns, overseas where people shoot at us, hate us, in austere locations, in tents, with MRE's, and all the other "benefits" that come with serving, so idiots back here are free to say stupid s..t and get away with it.

But if your intent William was instead to dishonor and humiliate members because retirees get paid, just fairly, for their 20+ years of “service,” I say to you, join up. Otherwise, Shut Up.

!

Why try and defend against Bob.... LOSER says it all. No common sense---of course that is lacking in college edyoucayshun cause the edyoucayters have none to share. Go away Bob and try and convince someone else that you have a right to THEIR money.

Sorry Bob - still not feeling any pain for ya'.- I was without health insurance during that period - I DID have a health crisis that cost a heck of a lot of money to diagnose (no real treatment available regardless of money) - and paid installments on that bill until it was paid off. This was during the 90's, so while I might seem old, I'm not THAT old. That better job was not a flagrantly better job, but gradually, over a number of years, my income went up as well as my benefits. It isn't supposed to happen overnight. You have to keep at it.

Hey Bob - Be all you can be!

Can't get a job? I hear the Army is still hiring. Or perhaps you can't qualify. Last I heard, about 2/3 of 18-21 year old males in US cannot qualify for military service! 2/3 either have health problems, can't achieve high enough score on aptitude and didn't finish high school, or have some previous serious legal troubles (i.e. drug dealers, felony assault, armed robbery, etc.) that cannot be waived. But, Bob, if you still want health care (and if you qualify) the Army can fix you up. The Army will teach you personal accountability, instill pride based upon proven merit, and you will never whine about lack of opportunity again! Don't hesitate. Call your recruiter NOW at 1-800-USAARMY. And welcome to maturity and responsibility!

MAJ USA Ret. I press your "Like" button. I wish there was still selective service and the draft for those poor, illiterate college grads.

Must be the curriculum these days don't quite size up qualifications for getting a job, like Proper Condom Application and Fisting 101. Nothing in the curriculum such as Civics or (unfiltered) History.

For the record, military retirement pay and benefits are deferred compensation. They are not welfare: they are earned. There are two ways to collect: get a permanent disability while serving (like my father) or serve for at least two decades (like me).

Oh, you get medical coverage the day you start. Come on, Bob: sign on the line. I'll even administer the oath.

Bravo, gentlemen (and Lady). Bravo!

To each and everyone of you who have Sworn to uphold an ideal greater than yourself, and to place yourself in a position of harm to carry out your Oath- I salute you.

In the defense of liberty you and I learned a concept completely foreign to USERS like Bob.

Do not fail to realize that he, like so many in our Once Great Republic, do not have the basic skill set required to "see beyond their noses."

Be courageous, keep the faith. There are still many who do know what it is to struggle, and SUCCEED, all-the-while carrying the weight of these despots.

There will be a reckoning.

It was a central fact of life that I would become an independent, self supporting person, including working my way through college. Hard work, but I was the cause of my own life.

Politically, I believe that gaining money and power is the objective of both parties. Perhaps there is no one cure, but why not change the rule so that all elected legislators are required to recuse themselves from voting on any issue that favors any of their contributors. We all know large contributions are really just bribes, but the legislators have changed the rule so that if they take money from anyone, then they have not taken a bribe. This ignores the fact that only those with a vested interest in the views of candidate gives money to that candidate.