SCHIP will pass!

[Wild Cobra]

Yep, that's right. First, playing politics as usual and wanting to create socialism, the democrats tried to pass SCHIP at a 300% poverty rate for application. What this would do is take children out of private health plans and get people to let the government take care of them with "Other Peoples Money." Typical Socialistic/Marxist democrats. Anti American, not believing in the hard work producing what we have today.

Anyway, SCHIP was introduced again, without the change to 300% or the increased age eligibility. Yep, that's right, they wanted to include young adults too. The Lemmings wonder why the republicans are so mean.

Anyway, a summary from S 2499 actions (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN02499:@@@X):


S.2499
Title: A bill to amend titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act to extend provisions under the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP programs, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Baucus, Max [MT] (introduced 12/18/2007) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 12/27/2007 Presented to President. ALL ACTIONS:

12/18/2007:
Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S15834-15843; text as passed Senate: CR S15837-15843)
12/18/2007 5:56pm:
Received in the House.
12/18/2007 6:01pm:
Held at the desk.
12/18/2007:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
12/19/2007 10:38am:
Mr. Pallone moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
12/19/2007 10:38am:
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H16842-16855)
12/19/2007 11:31am:
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
12/19/2007 4:22pm:
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H16900)
12/19/2007 4:29pm:
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 411 - 3 (Roll no. 1184 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1184.xml)). (text: CR H16842-16848)
12/19/2007 4:29pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
12/19/2007:
Cleared for White House.
12/27/2007:
Presented to President.

Text of bill in PDF:


A BILL
To amend titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security
Act to extend provisions under the Medicare, Medicaid,
and SCHIP programs, and for other purposes. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s2499cps.txt.pdf)

Clarification of SCHIP starts on page 48.

[violentkitten]

and the evil conservative republican president will sign it.

you're a bit outdated in your thinking if you believe the democratic party is the only party attempting to grow the scale and scope of the federal government.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

i believe his emphasis was on socialist aspects rather than just the size of the government


i personally don't give a fuck as long as my taxes don't go up

tax the rich for this shit and i'll laugh like no other

yeah like that'll happen

[Wild Cobra]

tax the rich for this shit and i'll laugh like no other

You know. I really despise attitudes like yours. "Tax the rich"...

Now I'm not rich, but I wobble between five and six figures. The rich only make up a small percentage. When more revenue is needed, and taxes are raised... I get hit FUCKING HARD!

Fuck your ignorant attitude on taxes.

You should only aspire to pay as much in taxes as I do, rather than wish harm on my income and others.

Try paying more than $20K in taxes and see if you like it when they ask for $5k more.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Naturally, you are upper-middle class. It was simply an IF statement i just didn't say IF. You said yourself you weren't rich. Are you saying you would give a shit in a world where we tax the rich for shit like this? Your post didn't tell me anything I dont already know, plus it did not tell me why you would care about me wanting the rich to be taxed for this.

[violentkitten]

you are the "rich". the real rich know how and can afford to pay for the best advice and strategies to mitigate their tax liability. it's those whose incomes come primarily from their salaries who end up footing the bill for shit like this.

and nobody in dc is looking out for you. not even the supposedly anti tax and spend gop.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

which is why i said this sounds like a good idea as long as it doesn't affect my tax situation

[violentkitten]

all of this crap affects us. of course our friends the chinese will float it. but some day that will come due.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

attempt to humor me

if it only affected the rich

would YOU care?

[violentkitten]

when has it? donations aren't made to pacs or parties because someone really cares. and both parties are in the palm of their hands.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

attempt to humor me

if it only affected the rich

would YOU care?

[violentkitten]

it affects the non-rich so i care. i dont necessarily pour out a little when someone has to pay an estate tax bill.

trust no one with power.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Yeah I understand how people of your age say shit like "oh when you're young and in college you vote democrat but when you get a job you'll be a republican"

To me its hilarious

because its like you said
both of those worthless parties are in the palm of their hands

You know Kinky Friedman was right about one thing
politicians are like a used condom
if you don't change them out things get messy

[violentkitten]

Yeah I understand how people of your age

man i cant wait to sign up for medicare tomorrow.


say shit like "oh when you're young and in college you vote democrat but when you get a job you'll be a republican"

after a year or two of that you become apathetic.




To me its hilarious

because its like you said
both of those worthless parties are in the palm of their hands

You know Kinky Friedman was right about one thing
politicians are like a used condom
if you don't change them out things get messy

and then they are replaced by another one. rinse. repeat.

[violentkitten]

a good read (http://www.amazon.com/Perfectly-Legal-Campaign-Rich-CheatEverybody/dp/1591840694/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198819173&sr=8-2) if you want the details.

[Wild Cobra]

attempt to humor me

if it only affected the rich

would YOU care?
Yes I would care. Ever get a job from someone of moderate means that paid anything worth while?

When the rich make less, there are less jobs available for us more common people.

There are not enough "Rich" people to care about taxing any more percentage wise than any of us in the middle class. The bulk of the tax revenues come from the working middle class.

Unlike you. I care about my fellow citizens and don’t have evil intentions like class envy.

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors belongings,” or something like that.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yep, that's right. First, playing politics as usual and wanting to create socialism, the democrats tried to pass SCHIP at a 300% poverty rate for application. What this would do is take children out of private health plans and get people to let the government take care of them with "Other Peoples Money." Typical Socialistic/Marxist democrats. Anti American, not believing in the hard work producing what we have today.

Anyway, SCHIP was introduced again, without the change to 300% or the increased age eligibility. Yep, that's right, they wanted to include young adults too. The Lemmings wonder why the republicans are so mean.

Anyway, a summary from S 2499 actions (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN02499:@@@X):









Text of bill in PDF:


A BILL
To amend titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security
Act to extend provisions under the Medicare, Medicaid,
and SCHIP programs, and for other purposes. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s2499cps.txt.pdf)

Clarification of SCHIP starts on page 48.


your losing it ... you need to layoff the talk radio

were you upset when the GOP majority played politics with legislation they proposed? or are you a blinded partisan hack that only gets upset when the dems do it?

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Yes I would care. Ever get a job from someone of moderate means that paid anything worth while?

When the rich make less, there are less jobs available for us more common people.

There are not enough "Rich" people to care about taxing any more percentage wise than any of us in the middle class. The bulk of the tax revenues come from the working middle class.

Unlike you. I care about my fellow citizens and don’t have evil intentions like class envy.

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors belongings,” or something like that.

Reagan would be proud.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

i'm glad that people with an income of $80,000 will get necessary help. just a closer step to making universal health care become a "logical" next step. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!! Bush isn't running for President in '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SouthernFried]

If you don't care if the rich get taxed...it says more about you, than any rich/poor debate. And you become part of the problem.

Universal health care is for people who are too stupid, or too lazy to take care of themselves. Most govt social programs rely on the stupid and lazy to insure funding for their program. All Democrats, and most Republicans gear their campaigns around getting votes from this increasingly large voting population. Thereby, increasing that voting blocs numbers.

"Hey! They're getting it...I want some too! Where do I sign?"

And so it goes...

[xrayzebra]

I still haven't figured out why someone would want the Government
running their health care. Especially when they have trouble
running anything. But old Teddy Kennedy knows more about your
health care than you do. Or maybe old Shaky Byrd knows more.
Or maybe the collective group congressmen knows best and you
don't know from nothing about your health care.

[Holt's Cat]

If you don't care if the rich get taxed...it says more about you, than any rich/poor debate. And you become part of the problem.

Universal health care is for people who are too stupid, or too lazy to take care of themselves. Most govt social programs rely on the stupid and lazy to insure funding for their program. All Democrats, and most Republicans gear their campaigns around getting votes from this increasingly large voting population. Thereby, increasing that voting blocs numbers.

"Hey! They're getting it...I want some too! Where do I sign?"

And so it goes...


How about those who can't get coverage because they aren't "lazy" or "stupid" but due to an existing condition or illness?

It's a bit simplistic to assume that only those who aren't working hard enough aren't able to gain access to health care coverage.

Sure, handouts are always appealing to some, but why is it always assumed that it is the "stupid" and "lazy" who are lining up at the public trough? It's not that hard to see that many in our society who are lauded as exemplars of free enterprise success owe much to working governments in this country for handouts to their lazy asses.

Granted, they are able to do so because many are too stupid to figure out that it's the rich who are on the dole.

Greater government involvement in medicine isn't appealing, but when you have supposedly conservative Republicans willing to implement it for their big pharma supporters and some votes from the elderly then it's going to arrive in some shape or form.

[SouthernFried]

How about those who can't get coverage because they aren't "lazy" or "stupid" but due to an existing condition or illness?

It's a bit simplistic to assume that only those who aren't working hard enough aren't able to gain access to health care coverage.

Sure, handouts are always appealing to some, but why is it always assumed that it is the "stupid" and "lazy" who are lining up at the public trough? It's not that hard to see that many in our society who are lauded as exemplars of free enterprise success owe much to working governments in this country for handouts to their lazy asses.

Granted, they are able to do so because many are too stupid to figure out that it's the rich who are on the dole.

Greater government involvement in medicine isn't appealing, but when you have supposedly conservative Republicans willing to implement it for their big pharma supporters and some votes from the elderly then it's going to arrive in some shape or form.

As I said...all Democrats and MOST REPUBLICANS do this. And that majority of Republicans doing this are as conservative as Liberal Democrats. Bush is a prime example. Bush is no conservative.

And the stupid and lazy ARE lining up at the public trough. Govt social programs are geared for them specifically. If it were geared ONLY for the truely infirmed, even most conservatives would be hard pressed not to support it. Disabled Vets is a prime example.

But, that ain't the case. The vast majority who recieve it, shouldn't (and yes, that includes any corporate welfare as well...tho, any type of tax break is NOT welfare, they earned the money, it's theirs.) The fact that most Americans know this is what's truely frustrating.

Liberals only are interested in the "corporate" welfare (and they think tax breaks are corporate welfare, which is wrong.) Conservatives seem more level headed on this, and generally want to get rid of both...but, do focus on Social spending more (which is logical, since that's 95% of the expense.)

As far as Health Care. This is tough. Costs have risen so dramatically it's gotten out of control. However, the problem will not be fixed by govt intervention. In fact, a lot of the problems with rising costs are a direct result of govt intervention. More of it will only screw it up...can you say $800 toilet seats? Everything govt does costs more, we should all know this by now.

Insurance is also partly to blame. If everyone had to pay, out of their pocket, health costs...you better beleive they would be shopping those costs and keeping an eye out for them. Having insurance has taken that oversight away..."I don't care, insurance/Medicaid/Medicare will cover it." Taking the market completely out of play. Howeve, if given enough time...people will start making those insurance companies accountable for those high premiums. It's a curve, like anything else...prices go up to a point where they're not affordable anymore, customers leave...new alternatives come into play.

The market will make things affordable...if left alone to do its job. Everyone wants a quick-fix tho, so this will never happen. Americans have become stupid, imnsho. I blame our uneducation system, Brittany Spears, and the Monkees for this.

[Holt's Cat]

As I said...all Democrats and MOST REPUBLICANS do this. And that majority of Republicans doing this are as conservative as Liberal Democrats. Bush is a prime example. Bush is no conservative.

And the stupid and lazy ARE lining up at the public trough. Govt social programs are geared for them specifically. If it were geared ONLY for the truely infirmed, even most conservatives would be hard pressed not to support it. Disabled Vets is a prime example.

When it's the poor, they're "stupid" and "lazy". When it's the rich, it's "free enterprise".

It doesn't bother me that much if some poor kids get Pell grants to help them go to college or, gasp, handouts to help them receive medical care.

As for the "public trough", what exactly is that? Is that when you attend a public university with federal student loans and then pretend that you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps?



But, that ain't the case. The vast majority who recieve it, shouldn't (and yes, that includes any corporate welfare as well...tho, any type of tax break is NOT welfare, they earned the money, it's theirs.) The fact that most Americans know this is what's truely frustrating.


And corporate "welfare" also includes rules bent so that they favor the established.




Liberals only are interested in the "corporate" welfare (and they think tax breaks are corporate welfare, which is wrong.) Conservatives seem more level headed on this, and generally want to get rid of both...but, do focus on Social spending more (which is logical, since that's 95% of the expense.)


"Conservatives" as they refer to themselves in DC these days are a big reason that corporate welfare exists.



As far as Health Care. This is tough. Costs have risen so dramatically it's gotten out of control. However, the problem will not be fixed by govt intervention. In fact, a lot of the problems with rising costs are a direct result of govt intervention. More of it will only screw it up...can you say $800 toilet seats? Everything govt does costs more, we should all know this by now.

Insurance is also partly to blame. If everyone had to pay, out of their pocket, health costs...you better beleive they would be shopping those costs and keeping an eye out for them. Having insurance has taken that oversight away..."I don't care, insurance/Medicaid/Medicare will cover it." Taking the market completely out of play. Howeve, if given enough time...people will start making those insurance companies accountable for those high premiums. It's a curve, like anything else...prices go up to a point where they're not affordable anymore, customers leave...new alternatives come into play.


Yeah, but first off you'd have to make health care benefits taxable so that they become disentangled from your place of employment. It's not like most people really have that much of a choice when it comes to their health coverage.




The market will make things affordable...if left alone to do its job. Everyone wants a quick-fix tho, so this will never happen. Americans have become stupid, imnsho. I blame our uneducation system, Brittany Spears, and the Monkees for this.

Still, as a society I think at some level you have to consider ensuring that the poor receive the basics in life somehow. Yes, this doesn't mean you socialize one-fifth of your economy (something I absolutely do not support) but what's the harm in providing some kind of guarantee? And I don't mean the guarantee that these days finds it way into subsidizing the middle class. We heavily subsidize education as we realize the positive externalities that arise from a better educated citizenry warrant it, yet somehow that turns into a major evil when applied to improving the health of the poor.

And then to top it off the free enterprisers at the public trough are supporting those who decry welfare as the undeserved fruits of the "lazy" and "stupid".

There's something dreadfully wrong in these States of America.

[Holt's Cat]

PS...it's amusing how many of the "lazy" and "stupid" are solidly middle class these days.

[Mr. Peabody]

Still, as a society I think at some level you have to consider ensuring that the poor receive the basics in life somehow. Yes, this doesn't mean you socialize one-fifth of your economy (something I absolutely do not support) but what's the harm in providing some kind of guarantee? And I don't mean the guarantee that these days finds it way into subsidizing the middle class. We heavily subsidize education as we realize the positive externalities that arise from a better educated citizenry warrant it, yet somehow that turns into a major evil when applied to improving the health of the poor.

And then to top it off the free enterprisers at the public trough are supporting those who decry welfare as the undeserved fruits of the "lazy" and "stupid".

There's something dreadfully wrong in these States of America.

:clap :toast :clap

[Holt's Cat]

With all of the prosthelyzing going on in our nation's capitol you would think that someone would feel somewhat uncomfortable about taking taxes from the least and rewarding the wealthy. It's a rather successful enterprise though, making middle class saps enraged that some poor black or brown kid might get a lil' help at their expenses while Daddy Warbucks backs up the truck at Uncle Sam's house.

[boutons_]

"you have to consider ensuring that the poor receive the basics in life somehow."

Not for right wingers, who exploit the anti-rational/anti-scientific IDers/creationists on biological Darwinism, but otoh, not only believe, but ruthlessly promulgate and execute and re-enforce anti-humanitarian/anti-Christian social/economic Darwinism.

Why aren't public schools, fire, police, garbage, roads/bridges, etc services paid for by taxes and provide a common service not slimed and ridiculed as "socialism".

[Wild Cobra]

your losing it ... you need to layoff the talk radio

were you upset when the GOP majority played politics with legislation they proposed? or are you a blinded partisan hack that only gets upset when the dems do it?
I'm not a mind reader. Can you elaborate?

Did I ever claim to be a republican or support everything they do?

I have stated several times my dislikes of some of president Bush's decisions and some other republicans as situations arise.

Please refresh me of when the republicans were being 'partisan hacks' however. I don't recall a time other than it being stated as by the media. Maybe I’m wrong, but I ask that you justify what your statement implies please. Pick a subject and look up the votes under Thomas, or some other site that keeps accurate records of congress:

Thomas; Library of Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/)

[Wild Cobra]

i'm glad that people with an income of $80,000 will get necessary help. just a closer step to making universal health care become a "logical" next step. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!! Bush isn't running for President in '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That will not happen and that is why the republicans opposed it before. The $80,000+ number was the 300% poverty rate of places like New Yourk city. It passed under the previous 200%!

Didn't I mention those numbers in the original posting? In fact, I said in the earlier thread it would pass at 200% when the attempt of the democrats raising the levels were being held up in the senate.

Maybe you should refresh your memory with these threads. Here are some of my statements within some previous threads:

SHIP Again: (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80413)


Doesn't congress have anything better to do than make another bill that will get veted?

SCHIP bill (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h3963pcs.txt.pdf)

and requiring everyone buy flood insurance

Flood Insurance Requirement (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s2251is.txt.pdf)

will people who cannot buy it be forced to sell?

The Swift-Boating of Graeme Frost: (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79310)


No shit.

It's a common democrat practice to bring people into the light that are politically incorrect to challenge.

Then there are the facts of SCHIP. The problem the president has isn't SCHIP, but that the eligibility is changing from 200% of the poverty rate to 300%! I heard president Bush would have signed it at 250%!

Sob stories play well on the ignorant and uneducated. They don't do well factually unless the facts actually stack up with those of us who do a little homework with the facts.

Dan, as for Swift-Boating...

When I hear that term, I think of the fact that Kerry's stance was decimated by facts! Not by fiction. It was Kerry playing a fictional hero, when he was a coward.

254 swift boat veterans can't be wrong...


Advocating it would be one thing. They are being used as pawns by the democrats. If they democrats just voted in the same package as before, without increasing from the 200% to 300%, it would be reauthorized!

It's the democrats playing politics here. Not the president...

dubya vetoed SCHIP, is he also lying, again?: (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78792)


Well I'm glad he vetoed it. It raises the level from families at the average income point (200% poverty level) to either 300% or 400% of the poverty level. If they didn't make these increases, I could see the bill passing just fine. The $83K number spoke of is at the 400% poverty rate, but I can only find 300% in the legislation (link below), in numerous places. I didn't read the whole bill, so I guess it's possible the 400% is 200% and another 200% somplace, or some other addition. It could also be a non-exsistant number that was in the original bill, but removed with an amendment.

Why do we need to help families at the $60k or $80k rates? This could be disastorous. First of all, health care for children is not as expensive as for adults. Most people withn these income levels have jobs that cover dependants for a little bit more. My children are of age now, but I think my payments were about $80 per month to add them. What this legislation has the potential of doing, is having employers drop dependant care because the government now provides it. The numbers of the privately insured could drop, for favor of free health care.

The plan now costs how much more, and how do we pay for it?

link: HR 976 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h976eah.txt.pdf)

[SouthernFried]

When it's the poor, they're "stupid" and "lazy". When it's the rich, it's "free enterprise".

It is??

It doesn't bother me that much if some poor kids get Pell grants to help them go to college or, gasp, handouts to help them receive medical care.

Then let them knock on your door to get the money. It doesn't bother you now cuz they don't have to knock on your door to get it. If your neighbors kid forced you to give him the money for college, you'd quite naturally complain. So when does it become ok for the Govt to do the same thing?

"that's...that's different"

No, it's not.

As for the "public trough", what exactly is that? Is that when you attend a public university with federal student loans and then pretend that you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps?

Yes, that is part of it.



And corporate "welfare" also includes rules bent so that they favor the established.

Rules are being bent all over the place. The whole Constitution has been bent...and not to just favor the "established." Most have been bent to favor the Govt.


"Conservatives" as they refer to themselves in DC these days are a big reason that corporate welfare exists.

And "LIBERALS are the biggest reason Social welfare exists. Which is multiple times larger than any "corporate welfare."


Yeah, but first off you'd have to make health care benefits taxable so that they become disentangled from your place of employment. It's not like most people really have that much of a choice when it comes to their health coverage.

Then give them MORE choices..don't offer them less choices by mandating a one "universal" approach. Making ANYTHING more "taxable" is a socialists/communists view of the market. You must make more things LESS taxable. The govt doesn't need more of our money...it needs LESS of our money.



Still, as a society I think at some level you have to consider ensuring that the poor receive the basics in life somehow. Yes, this doesn't mean you socialize one-fifth of your economy (something I absolutely do not support) but what's the harm in providing some kind of guarantee? And I don't mean the guarantee that these days finds it way into subsidizing the middle class. We heavily subsidize education as we realize the positive externalities that arise from a better educated citizenry warrant it, yet somehow that turns into a major evil when applied to improving the health of the poor.

You can "ensure that the poor receive the basics in life"...forcing others to do that by gunpoint (ayup, that is how all govts collect their money) is immoral and criminal. The US was NEVER created to ensure ANYONE recieves the basics. The USSR was created under that premise." Understand the difference, and you understand which works better. Once you start with the basic premise of the USSR, you already know the result.

And shame on anyone who hasn't learned this basic lesson.

We heavily subsidize education...and are producing some of the least educated in the world. We can get into the private/public/home school debate all you want...but the results are indisputable.

And if you are using the Educational system is a support for Universal health care...you can do it for anything. Food, which is more important for survival than health or Education..should be provided. Housing, cars...everything. Once you start...there is no logical conclusion, only differing opinions on where to stop/continue. It then becomes...how much do people really need to work to cover the things the govt ISN'T "giving them."

And then your back to the USSR example. The incentive to produce was undermined by the very policy that sought to give everyone the necessities.

Basic Stuff here...that never seems to be learned.

And then to top it off the free enterprisers at the public trough are supporting those who decry welfare as the undeserved fruits of the "lazy" and "stupid".

I have a deal for you. Let's find out whose more serious here.

I'll support ending ALL corporate welfare...if YOU support ending all Social welfare.

Not a chance, eh?

Your problem is with Free Enterprise(rs) and business...not welfare.

There's something dreadfully wrong in these States of America.

I couldn't agree more.

[Holt's Cat]

It is??

It's certainly sold that way.


Then let them knock on your door to get the money. It doesn't bother you now cuz they don't have to knock on your door to get it. If your neighbors kid forced you to give him the money for college, you'd quite naturally complain. So when does it become ok for the Govt to do the same thing?

"that's...that's different"

No, it's not.

That's nice. At least when that happens to give a little to the poor there's some good coming of that. Of course, nowadays the recipients are more likely to be the middle class and the "rich". But that never seems to draw the ire of the "conservatives" of today.


Yes, that is part of it.

Nevermind that such policies have helped to educate millions who otherwise would have been unable to afford it. I know, it's a perfect world in which lenders would naturally line up to finance the educations of deserving students. And those lenders who would actually do so would never pay off politicians to rig the system in their favor.

Anyways, what you speak of is well and good in theory, a theory which I have generally subscribed to in my youth, but a theory that will never come anywhere close to fruition. The best chance we had for its implementation has been with the current administration, and when it had its chance what did it do? It pursued policies which enriched its supporters. Not those who voted it into power, mind you, but those who paid it tribute. When faced with a system which takes from the less fortunate masses to enrich those at the top it is immoral. When such power does so cloaked in the rhetoric of Christianity, it is beneath contempt. But of course what matters is that sapphic love is not practiced, not that we do as Christ taught and do all we can for the poor.

If we merely had a system which distributed minor amounts to the less fortunate I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, however much it flew in the face of pure classical liberalism. I mean, there is the issue of the social costs borne by society when we end up with a permanent under-or uneducated class with little hope. I guess we'll just kill them off when they come to our homes. Put them down like dogs.

Isn't it interesting how willing we are to force the little man to pay for not being perfect, yet those with wealth and connections who have their imperfections never seem to have those slow them down? They just pass those on to the rest of us. If they aren't successful they still get paid. If we aren't successful we're out on the street with scarlet letters on our foreheads. But we're the "lazy" and "stupid" ones.

Maybe we do need policies that encourage, as Scrooge exhorted, to "decrease the surplus population". I guess we'll find out sooner or later what Christ thinks about that.

[Holt's Cat]

We see several European nations which are truly both democratic and socialist and we see none of the evils of the late USSR in exhibit. Now water down those policies to a system in which truly free enterprise produces goods and services and the government provides modest amounts of redistribution to the poor so that they may actually be educated and have some access to medical care. This is nothing close to the October Revolution you postulate.

[Holt's Cat]

Not to mention that a lot of those nations surpass the US in various quality of health and education metrics.

[SouthernFried]

It's certainly sold that way.

Ok, Name me one person who is trying to sell "corporate welfare" as "free enterprise."


That's nice. At least when that happens to give a little to the poor there's some good coming of that. Of course, nowadays the recipients are more likely to be the middle class and the "rich". But that never seems to draw the ire of the "conservatives" of today.

To the point again...why is not ok for you neighbors kid to come in and take money from you for college/health care/whatever...but, ok for govt to do it? I mean...he'll do "some good" with it!

And who cares who the recipients of welfare are (govt social programs vastly favor the poor, and always will.) The point is, America was not formed to provide handouts for ANYONE. Your only problem seems to be when "corporations" or "free enterprisers" get it.

Nevermind that such policies have helped to educate millions who otherwise would have been unable to afford it. I know, it's a perfect world in which lenders would naturally line up to finance the educations of deserving students. And those lenders who would actually do so would never pay off politicians to rig the system in their favor.

If politicians are not in charge of "the system"...they cannot "rig it." That's the whole premise of less government.

Vouchers are the obvious intermediate answer here. Not perfect, and can come with strings attached...but the plus's far outweigh the negatives and have been successful in every inner-city and lower income areas that they've been tried in. Definetly not my ideal...but, a slow weaning process.

Anyways, what you speak of is well and good in theory, a theory which I have generally subscribed to in my youth, but a theory that will never come anywhere close to fruition. The best chance we had for its implementation has been with the current administration, and when it had its chance what did it do? It pursued policies which enriched its supporters. Not those who voted it into power, mind you, but those who paid it tribute. When faced with a system which takes from the less fortunate masses to enrich those at the top it is immoral. When such power does so cloaked in the rhetoric of Christianity, it is beneath contempt. But of course what matters is that sapphic love is not practiced, not that we do as Christ taught and do all we can for the poor.

This was the "theory" that founded our country...and made this country great. It was implemented at the beginning, and has been slowly eroded since (the nature of govt is to increase at the expense of liberty - Thomas Jefferson...) to where you can't even go fishing/get married/or get a job without govt approval and licensing. If you beleived in Liberty and individual freedom and responsibility in your youth...but chucked it because you didn't think it would come to fruition...your the only person I've ever heard of that happened to. Everyone else believed in fairy god mothers righting all the wrongs and providing for all the poor and hungry, and realized when govt took that role, it turned into the really big bad wolf.

Your christianity analogy is sorta incomprehensible.

If we merely had a system which distributed minor amounts to the less fortunate I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, however much it flew in the face of pure classical liberalism. I mean, there is the issue of the social costs borne by society when we end up with a permanent under-or uneducated class with little hope. I guess we'll just kill them off when they come to our homes. Put them down like dogs.

Sorry, this is kinda weird...are you ok?

Isn't it interesting how willing we are to force the little man to pay for not being perfect, yet those with wealth and connections who have their imperfections never seem to have those slow them down? They just pass those on to the rest of us. If they aren't successful they still get paid. If we aren't successful we're out on the street with scarlet letters on our foreheads. But we're the "lazy" and "stupid" ones.

Again...the little man is getting HUGE amounts of benefits from the distribution of wealth in this country, from the govt. Nobody is "forcing the little man to pay for anything..."very much the contrary, they pay for very, very little, if anything.

I don't know any wealthy person that if he/she isn't successful, still gets paid. Wealthy are wealthy, because they are successful, not otherwise. I even know wealthy people who lost it all...but, yet still didn't take "handouts."
...and became wealthy again.

Scarlet letters on heads?...er, you sure your ok? Spurs are on tonight, something to look forward to!

Maybe we do need policies that encourage, as Scrooge exhorted, to "decrease the surplus population". I guess we'll find out sooner or later what Christ thinks about that.

Policies that want to decrease the surplus population? I dunno man, this conversation is sorta getting bizarre. I would offer you some fine German Wine that my buddy brought me from Berlin...but, I'm not sure you should really have it right now.

How about some MGD and BBQ...perfect complements to a Spurs game, imho. And I know this girl...

[Holt's Cat]

I think it's a bit weird you can't apply more than one set of quote tags, but to each his own, in your case.

The current administration certainly touts the successes of the recipients of its largesse, so there you go.


To the point again...why is not ok for you neighbors kid to come in and take money from you for college/health care/whatever...but, ok for govt to do it? I mean...he'll do "some good" with it!

And who cares who the recipients of welfare are (govt social programs vastly favor the poor, and always will.) The point is, America was not formed to provide handouts for ANYONE. Your only problem seems to be when "corporations" or "free enterprisers" get it.


What exactly is the problem with that? So what if those stupid lazy poor get a few crumbs? American civilization isn't going to end.

Also, taking your argument to its extreme, there should be no public roads, no public fire or police departments, no parks, etc.


This was the "theory" that founded our country...and made this country great. It was implemented at the beginning, and has been slowly eroded since (the nature of govt is to increase at the expense of liberty - Thomas Jefferson...) to where you can't even go fishing/get married/or get a job without govt approval and licensing.


So who owns the rivers and lakes you want to fish in?



If you beleived in Liberty and individual freedom and responsibility in your youth...but chucked it because you didn't think it would come to fruition...your the only person I've ever heard of that happened to. Everyone else believed in fairy god mothers righting all the wrongs and providing for all the poor and hungry, and realized when govt took that role, it turned into the really big bad wolf.


Actually I'm past the stage in which you are currently stuck. The Big Bad Wolf isn't going away. It's getting meaner. It's taking from the poor to give to the rich, at a much greater clip than ever before. Meanwhile the "conservative" politicians you vote in expect you to continue to believe its the stupid and lazy who are responsible for the ever expanding size of the federal government. Basically they expect you to continue to be stupid and lazy.




Sorry, this is kinda weird...are you ok?

How is that weird? If you expect a society to function in which wealth is forcibly transferred up the economic food chain you might need a check up. If there is no chance at upward mobility then you have a permanent subclass of people with no hope. That's when every social pathology you can think of will increase. What are we to do with those people? Execute them? Preach to them the greatness of Austrian economics that they should be forced to fend for themselves while the wealthy are subsidized by the government?



Again...the little man is getting HUGE amounts of benefits from the distribution of wealth in this country, from the govt. Nobody is "forcing the little man to pay for anything..."very much the contrary, they pay for very, very little, if anything.


Get real. The poor, if anything, have seen what little came their way slowly taken away. The feds can't even fund what little Pell grants they actually promised students. We're not exactly talking about criminals here. Just poor kids trying to make it to college and make a better life for themselves.



I don't know any wealthy person that if he/she isn't successful, still gets paid. Wealthy are wealthy, because they are successful, not otherwise. I even know wealthy people who lost it all...but, yet still didn't take "handouts."
...and became wealthy again.

Handouts aren't necessarily direct payments, though those occur. It can be in the form of a new regulation, perhaps it's in the form of a new entitlement expansion which guarantees the feds will be spending tens of billions a year to pharmaceutical companies. Perhaps it's the IRS looking the other way when a firm is caught backdating options that are part of an executive's compensation.



Your christianity analogy is sorta incomprehensible.

Not really. Many of the administration's current policies, particularly with regard to social issues, are based on an interpretation of 'Christian principles'. Christ was rather clear that the poor were to be given alms. But instead it's the rich who should receive those instead of those "stupid" and "lazy" poor.



Policies that want to decrease the surplus population? I dunno man, this conversation is sorta getting bizarre. I would offer you some fine German Wine that my buddy brought me from Berlin...but, I'm not sure you should really have it right now.

That's ok, I don't need you to subsidize my Deutsche wine consumption. I have a nice riesling already in the chiller.




How about some MGD and BBQ...perfect complements to a Spurs game, imho. And I know this girl...

MGD is trash and I've already had dinner. You know a girl? Congrats, I guess.

[SouthernFried]

I think it's a bit weird you can't apply more than one set of quote tags, but to each his own, in your case.

The current administration certainly touts the successes of the recipients of its largesse, so there you go.

Example please. Please be specific on Corporate Welfare being touted as "free enterprise." Thanks.

What exactly is the problem with that? So what if those stupid lazy poor get a few crumbs? American civilization isn't going to end.

So what if your neighbor's kid comes and demands you pay for his college education? American civilization aint gonna end if he takes it from you. It's just a few crumbs after all. Quit whining, and give him what he wants.

Also, taking your argument to its extreme, there should be no public roads, no public fire or police departments, no parks, etc.

Please learn to distinguish between federal and local/state.

So who owns the rivers and lakes you want to fish in?

My best freind owns the little lake on his property. Who do you want to own them?

Actually I'm past the stage in which you are currently stuck. The Big Bad Wolf isn't going away. It's getting meaner. It's taking from the poor to give to the rich, at a much greater clip than ever before. Meanwhile the "conservative" politicians you vote in expect you to continue to believe its the stupid and lazy who are responsible for the ever expanding size of the federal government. Basically they expect you to continue to be stupid and lazy.

Since the govt ain't taking from the poor (check federal income tax payments), I would say you need to back up to the stages you missed in during your life's journey.

I do agree that the big bad wolf is getting meaner tho...again, another reason to downsize it, right?

There are too few "conservative politicians" to convince anyone of anything. In fact, it's people like me who are trying to convince THEM that the lazy and poor are getting more and helping to increase the size of the federal govt. Of course, since that's what all govts and liberals want, it's a losing cause.

How is that weird? If you expect a society to function in which wealth is forcibly transferred up the economic food chain you might need a check up. If there is no chance at upward mobility then you have a permanent subclass of people with no hope. That's when every social pathology you can think of will increase. What are we to do with those people? Execute them? Preach to them the greatness of Austrian economics that they should be forced to fend for themselves while the wealthy are subsidized by the government?

You talk like a communist. Nobody is forcing wealth up the food chain, that's where it naturally goes, because that's where it's used most efficiently. If you think there is "no chance at upward mobility" in the USA, how do you explain Oprah? If you don't see upward mobility in the USA...you don't see it anywhere in the world. The last bastion of it is here, and that's why people flock here, risking their lives to do it. Capitalism works. Even if you can't see it, they can.

Get real. The poor, if anything, have seen what little came their way slowly taken away. The feds can't even fund what little Pell grants they actually promised students. We're not exactly talking about criminals here. Just poor kids trying to make it to college and make a better life for themselves.

Poor only have stuff taken away if they let it. Like anyone else, you make your own life...that is what the USA is all about. It's the successful in this country who are having their's taken away by people like you...because you are so giving and caring...and so want to be perceived as caring and loving with the evil richs money. Extremely magnimoose of you.

I'm glad you agree poor aint criminals. I was fully expecting you to say if you take away their handouts, they will all start stealing again.

Handouts aren't necessarily direct payments, though those occur. It can be in the form of a new regulation, perhaps it's in the form of a new entitlement expansion which guarantees the feds will be spending tens of billions a year to pharmaceutical companies. Perhaps it's the IRS looking the other way when a firm is caught backdating options that are part of an executive's compensation.

Handouts are mostly direct payments and giveaways...look at the budget, 65% of it are those social programs to the poor and govt dependent. We're talking trillions here.

In my dealings with the IRS...I have never found them to look away on anything. Except the poor, which they have no use for since they have no money.

Not really. Many of the administration's current policies, particularly with regard to social issues, are based on an interpretation of 'Christian principles'. Christ was rather clear that the poor were to be given alms. But instead it's the rich who should receive those instead of those "stupid" and "lazy" poor.

Than YOU give the poor YOUR alms if your a Christian and beleive in those principles. YOU dont FORCE anyone else to...that is inherently UNchristian.

And if someone wants to base their policy on beleif's they've garnered through religion...that's fine with me. If I agree with them, I'll support them. I don't care where people's beleifs come from, as long as they're right.

That's ok, I don't need you to subsidize my Deutsche wine consumption. I have a nice riesling already in the chiller.

That's good...drive carefully.

MGD is trash and I've already had dinner. You know a girl? Congrats, I guess.

If you say so...and thanks

[Holt's Cat]

I will just hit the high points as I don't feel like having to clean all that up.


Please learn to distinguish between federal and local/state.

How so? If it's immoral and an infringment on human liberty for the government to infringe on the people at one level, surely that holds true for any level.


So what if your neighbor's kid comes and demands you pay for his college education? American civilization aint gonna end if he takes it from you. It's just a few crumbs after all. Quit whining, and give him what he wants.

If he qualifies he can apply for said assistance. What if the neighbor treated him like shit and wouldn't help him out even if he could? We live in this fantasy that all kids grow up in Mayberry and only the stupid and lazy don't go on to improve their lot in life. I'd rather give the kid a chance than see him end up being a net drain on society with extended stays in the penal system.


Example please. Please be specific on Corporate Welfare being touted as "free enterprise." Thanks.

You can start with some big box retailers like Wal-Mart, Cabela's, etc...who come into a given community and demand various tax abatements and outright gifts to locate a store there. But no, it's because of their know-how and size that their operations are so profitable. Of course, you could consider the fact that your favorite professional basketball club pulled off a rather similiar gig a few years back. If you need a federal example, you can consider when the feds mandate that the government will spend tens of billions a year on pharmaceuticals, or perhaps hundreds of billions a year on defense contractors. Not to mention looking the other way when certain great companies (and campaign donors) opt to break the law, as with the options backdating scandal. But who cares about that? Only the shareholders paid the price, right?


Than YOU give the poor YOUR alms if your a Christian and beleive in those principles. YOU dont FORCE anyone else to...that is inherently UNchristian.

And if someone wants to base their policy on beleif's they've garnered through religion...that's fine with me. If I agree with them, I'll support them. I don't care where people's beleifs come from, as long as they're right.

Then what belief justifies taking from the masses to give to the wealthy? And if we want to go back in time to consider original intent we are knee deep in morality and faith.


Handouts are mostly direct payments and giveaways...look at the budget, 65% of it are those social programs to the poor and govt dependent. We're talking trillions here.

And oddly enough most of that is paid for through regressive taxes. And most of it is not going to the poor.



In my dealings with the IRS...I have never found them to look away on anything. Except the poor, which they have no use for since they have no money.

Oddly enough the IRS is much more likely to audit the working poor than those in the top 10% of income earners and partnership returns are hardly examined.


You talk like a communist. Nobody is forcing wealth up the food chain, that's where it naturally goes, because that's where it's used most efficiently. If you think there is "no chance at upward mobility" in the USA, how do you explain Oprah? If you don't see upward mobility in the USA...you don't see it anywhere in the world. The last bastion of it is here, and that's why people flock here, risking their lives to do it. Capitalism works. Even if you can't see it, they can.

I'm a communist? Then this entire nation is communist. Why don't you go talk to your buddies at the compound who went to a public university and tell them they're reds?

I never realized that highways and fishing licenses were a part of the People's grand design.

[SouthernFried]

If he qualifies he can apply for said assistance. What if the neighbor treated him like shit and wouldn't help him out even if he could? We live in this fantasy that all kids grow up in Mayberry and only the stupid and lazy don't go on to improve their lot in life. I'd rather give the kid a chance than see him end up being a net drain on society with extended stays in the penal system.

So, I just want to make sure I understand you. It IS ok for you neighbors kid to take money from you without your permission. OK...now that we have cleared that up...

You can start with some big box retailers like Wal-Mart, Cabela's, etc...who come into a given community and demand various tax abatements and outright gifts to locate a store there. But no, it's because of their know-how and size that their operations are so profitable. Of course, you could consider the fact that your favorite professional basketball club pulled off a rather similiar gig a few years back. If you need a federal example, you can consider when the feds mandate that the government will spend tens of billions a year on pharmaceuticals, or perhaps hundreds of billions a year on defense contractors. Not to mention looking the other way when certain great companies (and campaign donors) opt to break the law, as with the options backdating scandal. But who cares about that? Only the shareholders paid the price, right?

First...any type of tax abatement/credit...whatever, is not welfare or a handout. It's their money. The govt just aint "TAKING" more of it. It is NOT someone giving them someone ELSES money. I don't care who gets a tax credit/abatement, whatever...rich or poor, I support it. It's not a handout, it's just less hands-in-your-pocket.

The govt spends it's money foolishly. But, saying the govt spending money on an actual item, whether it be pharmaceuticals or shovels is welfare, is nonsense. It's a transaction that happens everyday...you want something, you pay for it. If the govt wants more tanks...they have to pay for it. That is not corporate welfare since it is not something for nothing.

Then what belief justifies taking from the masses to give to the wealthy? And if we want to go back in time to consider original intent we are knee deep in morality and faith.

I don't know how many times it has to be said...or proven through every proveable measure there is. But, I'll try one more time...NOBODY is taking from the masses and giving to the wealthy. It's the exact opposite...we are TAKING from the wealthy and giving to the masses. That is the whole concept behing our Progressive tax system. Don't take from the poor, and take increasingly large amounts from the wealthy.

Even Liberals must have seen the IRS figures of who contributes in taxes, where the bottom 50% pay around 3% of taxes (that's right, 3%)...and the top 50% pay around 97% of income taxes! The figures are common knowledge, have been around forever, these are ACTUAL IRS FIGURES...and simply destroy the silly notion that the masses are giving to the wealthy. It's amazing it still has to be repeated, and proof of the "I'm not listening, I'm not listening [hands in ears...blah, blah, blah]" attitude of the common liberal/socialist.

And oddly enough most of that is paid for through regressive taxes. And most of it is not going to the poor.

Since we have a progressive tax system and not a regressive tax system, I can only assume your taking the "Well, as a % of income, it costs the poor more for (fill in the blank)"

As a % of income, the poor pay more for a stick of gum. And that screwed up analogy would mean Wrigley's pricing is regressive...as is anything you buy in the whole world that is not dependent upon your income to determine the price.

Oddly enough the IRS is much more likely to audit the working poor than those in the top 10% of income earners and partnership returns are hardly examined.

Do you have figures supporting this? I would be interested to know who the IRS actually audits. Cuz, none of my employees have ever been audited, and my company gets audited every year...sometimes twice if they do a specialized payroll audit. Almost every business owner I know gets audited. I don't know of any of there employees that do.

So, I'd be interested in supporting documentation for this.



I'm a communist? Then this entire nation is communist. Why don't you go talk to your buddies at the compound who went to a public university and tell them they're reds?

Your ideas are communistic/marxist/socialist. Interesting note, the first thing the communists did after the takeover, was to make sure govt controlled what kids are taught in schools. Every regime's first goal, is to get some control over what children are taught. From their standpoint, it's the smartest move they can make.

And you probably already know, that Dewey (known as the father of American Public Education) was a communist. An Anti-Stalin Marxist in actuality.

So, to state that support of Govt Controlled education is Communist/Marxist is pretty much right on. Because it is.

I never realized that highways and fishing licenses were a part of the People's grand design.

Govt control is part of the "peoples" grand design. Govt control of as much as possible. Which includes just about everything...from fishing to dying. Certificate of Birth/death/marriage...Licenses to work/fish/open a business buy/sell a house...ad nauseum. There is virtually nothing you can do that doesn't require government approval.

There is nothing in life that a Marxist/Socialist/Communist/Liberal Democrat doesn't want to control. Nothing.

You want free healthcare? No-fucking-problem.

[Holt's Cat]

Since we have a progressive tax system and not a regressive tax system, I can only assume your taking the "Well, as a % of income, it costs the poor more for (fill in the blank)"

Um, payroll taxes. Look those up.


First...any type of tax abatement/credit...whatever, is not welfare or a handout. It's their money. The govt just aint "TAKING" more of it. It is NOT someone giving them someone ELSES money. I don't care who gets a tax credit/abatement, whatever...rich or poor, I support it. It's not a handout, it's just less hands-in-your-pocket.

It's bending the rules for those firms while their competitors in the local market receive no such treatment. Just because the cash doesn't come in doesn't make it any less a handout. But I'm glad your more concerned that some poor neighbor's son might get a little $ to go to college from yourself instead of large retail chains going on the dole.

There you go, you're for government helping the rich and ignoring the poor. End of discussion.

[SouthernFried]

Um, payroll taxes. Look those up.

Um...payroll taxes...what of them? Oh, I'll tell you what of them, I pay half of my employees payroll taxes, and I pay ALL of MY own payroll taxes. Plus I pay unemployment taxes for them, that they don't pay at all. Another so-called "break" for the wealthy? LOL

The Bottom 50% pay 3%, while the Top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of income taxes. Employees only pay half of their Payroll taxes and no unemployment taxes...while the Evil employer pays ALL of his own payroll taxes, PLUS half of his/hers employees payroll taxes, Plus all of their unemployment taxes.

Basically, the poor pay NO INCOME taxes at all, only contribute HALF of their own Payroll taxes, Pay NO unemployment taxes

...and this is the big transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, and regressive tax system you've been hyping?

I think thou doth have no clue what thou is talking about.

How 'bout those Spurs?


It's bending the rules for those firms while their competitors in the local market receive no such treatment. Just because the cash doesn't come in doesn't make it any less a handout. But I'm glad your more concerned that some poor neighbor's son might get a little $ to go to college from yourself instead of large retail chains going on the dole.

First, learn the difference between a Tax break (letting one keep more of one's OWN MONEY), and Welfare (GIVING people someone ELSES money.)

Is it a handout If I don't take 10$ out of your wallet?

In your view, it is.

You must work under the assumption that it ain't our money to begin with, to conclude that if they take less of it, it is a handout.

Liblogic.

You think Govt bends the rules? Say it ain't so...cuz, y'know, I want to put them in charge of our entire countries health care!! :drunk

And you've already answered the question that you think it's A-OK for your neighbors kid to demand your money to pay for his health care and college. I think you'll be getting a knock on the door pretty soon.

There you go, you're for government helping the rich and ignoring the poor. End of discussion.

I think by now, we know what each of is for... and against. I don't want govt providing welfare handouts for rich or poor, and you want to screw the rich and give their money to the poor...because you "care."

Robin Hood did look sexy in those tights...think they'll fit?




Ohhhh...blue is so much more relaxing and tranquil, doncha think?

[Holt's Cat]

Employees effectively pay the full amount of the payroll taxes. It's the cost of hiring them. And it's those taxes that pay for those social programs you decry. And what's left over goes to cover the cost of other government programs.

A tax break that applies only to one and no one else is a handout. Lest we forget that the local governments end up with less tax collections, so less for roads, schools, police, and fire protection. Yippee.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Employees effectively pay the full amount of the payroll taxes. It's the cost of hiring them. And it's those taxes that pay for those social programs you decry. And what's left over goes to cover the cost of other government programs.

A tax break that applies only to one and no one else is a handout. Lest we forget that the local governments end up with less tax collections, so less for roads, schools, police, and fire protection. Yippee.


This is what I don't understand. When federal money is cut from state budgets how do the 'cut taxes at all costs' crowd decide what the state is going to lose? of course the states could raise taxes to make up for the underfunding but of course this is taboo to the righties. It's very clear that some on this board want to starve some parts of the govt. however it's usually the poorest folks who get fucked when that happens. I would like for those who want to cut taxes at all costs to tell me what spending gets cut. I wonder why the talk radio crowd never addresses what the repurcussions of of the tax cuts are. What govt programs will be affected ? Why don't they tell the public that when they talk of cutting taxes?

[SouthernFried]

This is what I don't understand. When federal money is cut from state budgets how do the 'cut taxes at all costs' crowd decide what the state is going to lose? of course the states could raise taxes to make up for the underfunding but of course this is taboo to the righties. It's very clear that some on this board want to starve some parts of the govt. however it's usually the poorest folks who get fucked when that happens. I would like for those who want to cut taxes at all costs to tell me what spending gets cut. I wonder why the talk radio crowd never addresses what the repurcussions of of the tax cuts are. What govt programs will be affected ? Why don't they tell the public that when they talk of cutting taxes?

OK...I'll play.

Lets just take my worlds best scenario...we cut all social spending programs.

Social spending accounts for 65% of the US govts budget. What would happen...if we cut it all?

Defecit? What Deficit? National Debt? What national debt? NO MAS!

What happens when all that social spending, is cut, and the huge tax burden on the american people is cut by same amount...65%.

Imagine, if you will...your paycheck increasing by paying 65% less in the taxes taken out of it (you can only play if you actually have a job.) Imagine interest rates and the resulting increase in the value of the dollar because of the strengthening fiscal responsibility and creditworthiness of the US in foreign and domestic markets.

Imagine again...the incredible cash inflow into US industry that is now sucked out of it. Imagine every company, corporation, individual in the US...now having trillions of extra dollars to invest, buy, save. All with a more powerful dollar!!

I HAVE A DREAM!!

IMAGINE AGAIN foreign companies looking at the US without the burdesome tax rates, but with a strong dollar and fiscally responsible govt, then deciding to invest in the economy and moving operations INTO, insead of OUTOF the US!

IMAGINE THE FREAKIN' BOOM in every aspect of our economy. Housing, Manufacturing, Services...all with extra money and more incentive to produce than ever before...because they are no longer punished for it!

I HAVE A DREAM!!!!!

Remember now all you libolites...we are just talking about SOCIAL SPENDING programs at the national level. Nothing to do with infrastructure (streets and stuff), military, etc...Just getting rid of all the SOCIAL programs which account for 65% of our freakin' budget (actual budget figures.)

"Yeah...but...but...people will be starving in the streets, children will be dying in the playground, old folk will be committing suicide in Miami... without the govt taking care of them!!"

Socialists/Communists/Marxists have never understood freedom and economics. I am convinced they never will.

It is why they're who they are I guess.

So it goes...

[xrayzebra]

Well for all the posters. I will make a prediction. If the
dimm-o-craps get elected in the next general election you will
have more than SCHIP. National health will come about. I
have been talking to alot of young folks about the subject and
to my great surprise, and most have company provided insurance,
they are all for a national health scheme. Funny part is that
I even got some quotes from the Micheal Moore lie, SICKO.

I got the feeling that they think this is just going to given to
them, that they wont have to pay for it. I ask several of them
if they had looked at their pay check stub to see how much
they are now paying into MEDICARE and most had never
really looked. Anyhow, times are changing. And I really
don't think for the better.

[SouthernFried]

I've been saying Nationalized/Socialized Universal health care (whatever you wanna call it) is a done deal for many years now. It's actually an easy call.

Let the marketplace wean out the ineffecient, stablize costs/prices (through the, "that costs too much, lemme look somewhere else" process). Reduce govt interference and direct payments (when govt pays for stuff, it ALWAYS costs more). Deal with lawsuit abuse. Provide incentives for Health Savings accounts...

...or just have Government take over everything.

No brainer for a dumb-downed, economically uneducated populace.

Govt interference in the health care marketplace has made it so inneficient and costly, that people are crying for Govt to control it all.

If you find that ironic...you are one of the very few that is paying attention.

A govt takeover is a done deal...which has been the plan now for half a century.

On a more micro level, knew that toll roads were a done deal as soon as they proposed them, with or without public approval.

What govt wants, it gets.

And it wants control of Health care.

And, from the stupid, lazy, nearsighted, selfish tax-them crowd you have the battle cry... "Yeah!! Free Health care baby!!"

:hungry:

SIG

.

[George Gervin's Afro]

We already have universal healthcare.. shouldn't we try and make it cheaper?

[boutons_]

"make it cheaper"

If you listen carefully, the talk is almost always about how to pay for it while also covering uninsured people, NOT about how to stabilize, or horrors! reduce, the costs, which are way above inflation.

The health care industry is enormously profitable and it's all about profits, not about healthcare. The health care industry will fight violently (buying politicians and spreading lies) against any and all attempts to reduce their incomes. They don't care how they get paid, as long as they get paid. aka, the "free market". Is why I'm very pessimistic about any serious reforms, EVER.

"free market" healthcare will continue to transfer 100s of $Bs annually from wage earners to over-paid doctors and the insurance company's management and stockholders.

[SouthernFried]

Leftist's looking to govt to make it cheeeper:

"Well, it'll be FREE for me!!"

[George Gervin's Afro]

Leftist's looking to govt to make it cheeeper:

"Well, it'll be FREE for me!!"


Or you could choose to keep your current insurance. You do have a job that offers health benefits don't you?

[Wild Cobra]

I almost forgot this subject. I said it would pass, and it did.
President Bush signed it on 12/29/2007, it became Public Law No: 110-173.

Like I said in past threads, if they just asked for reauthorization, it will happen.