26. Praetorian:
Those programs are established by law and the individuals participating have no choice. In the case of Social Security, since the government takes the money out of your check as you go, you don’t have the opportunity to invest it yourself, so giving the money back when you get it could mean the difference between being able to pay your monthly bills and not being able to.
In the case of Medicare, again the government takes the money out before you touch it, which means you can’t put it into something tax-advantaged like a Health Savings Account, in order to save up to pay for your own health insurance once you’re off any employer or group plan. Then, since the government doesn’t really want health insurers in those markets as competition, good luck finding a policy. Again, not participating could mean the difference between being able to get health care services or not.
As for VA benefits, since war is a legitimate function of the state, one can logically make a case that the outcomes of war should be handled by the same government that legitimately wages it.
In addition, I’m sure that if you were to actually look at what various people propose vis-a-vis these existing programs, it’s primarily some sort of “grandfathering” option that will honor the current promises but stop accruing future promises. This is actually a fairly standard procedure and the mechanics of it are well-known.
I’m addressing your post “as if” it were logical, but of course, it’s merely the emotional outburst of a child-like mind that clearly cannot delineate between one category of expenditure and another. To say that it logically follows that because Social Security exists the government is empowered to bail out AIG is a non-sequitor, yet the bail out of AIG was a major bone of contention among those attending tea parties.
