[Op-Ed] - California’s Nightmare Will Kill Obamanomics

[Gan]

July 6 (Bloomberg) -- Last week, we discovered that the state of California will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

With California mired in a budget crisis, largely the result of a political impasse that makes spending cuts and tax increases impossible, Controller John Chiang said the state planned to issue $3.3 billion in IOU’s in July alone. Instead of cash, those who do business with California will get slips of paper.

The California morass has Democrats in Washington trembling. The reason is simple. If Obama’s health-care plan passes, then we may well end up paying for it with federal slips of paper worth less than California’s. Obama has bet everything on passing health care this year. The publicity surrounding the California debt fiasco almost assures his resounding defeat.

It takes years and years to make a mess as terrible as the California debacle, but the recipe is simple. All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors.

California has engaged in an orgy of spending, but, compared with our federal government, its legislators should feel chaste. The California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.
Bleak Picture

The federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S. I would imagine that he would be the intergalactic champion as well, if we could gather the data on deficits on other worlds. Obama has taken George W. Bush’s inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.

The Obama administration has no shame, and is willing to abandon reason altogether to achieve its short-term political goals. Ronald Reagan ran up big deficits in part because he believed that his tax cuts would produce economic growth, and ultimately pay for themselves. He may well have been excessively optimistic about the merits of tax cuts, but at least he had a story.

Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth. Nobody believes that it will pay for itself. Everyone understands that higher spending today begets higher spending tomorrow. That means that his economic strategy simply doesn’t add up.

Character Deficit
Back in the 1980s, Reagan’s own economist, Martin Feldstein, spoke up when he felt that the Reagan administration was pushing the deficit too far. Where are the economists with such character today? Apparently, the job description for economists has transformed from recommending policies that are defensible to defending whatever policies that the political hacks in the West Wing dream up.

As bad as the California legislature has been over the years, it has never entered a fiscal crisis like the one that we face today and then doubled down with a massive spending increase. In the end, when times got tough, patriotic and sensible Californians of both parties stood up and began acting like adults.

Maybe the same thing is starting to happen in our nation’s capital. The key players in Washington are Senator Evan Bayh and 15 Senate Democrats who joined him this year in forming a coalition of moderates. One thing that has distinguished moderate Democrats from the garden variety of the species is heightened concern about fiscal responsibility.
Off a Cliff

With the price tag of Obama-care likely to exceed $1 trillion, moderate Democrats face a simple choice. They can jump off the cliff with the president, or they can stay true to the principles that they have espoused throughout their careers.

There are reassuring signs that principle is winning. One of the most expensive components of the Obama plan is the so- called public-insurance option, which opponents fear would result in massive government subsidies. Senator Mary Landrieu said that she is “not open” to a public option that will compete with private insurance.

Many other Democratic Senators, including Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Tom Carper, also oppose the public option. As the cost estimates increase and support wanes, the Senate Finance Committee is even going as far as to pursue its own health-care plan, meaning that the health-care end game is now in sight.

Tax Bite
Moderates might support Obama’s health-care objectives if the bill also included tax increases to cover the spending increases. But those tax increases would likely be unpopular, making it almost impossible to pass a bill.

Given the increasing public concern about deficits that heightened significantly last week because of the California crisis, there are only two possibilities left. Either the Obama plan will come crashing down or Senate Democrats will concoct some bill that has health in the title but costs almost nothing and does even less. With Al Franken arriving in the Senate and providing Democrats with a crucial 60th vote, the latter seems most likely.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTKrn1jUJwdE
__________________________________________________ __

Obviously the slant is from the right and definately an Obama bash piece.

However, it brings to mind the question of providing for everyone with nobody paying. California has a lot of rich people living there - why cant they support the programs that have passed through their legislature? And does this represent what could happen on a larger scale if the California experiment goes national.

Discuss.

[Parkbandit]

Socialism works really well.. until it's out of other people's money to spend.

[Kembal]

Obviously the slant is from the right and definately an Obama bash piece.

However, it brings to mind the question of providing for everyone with nobody paying. California has a lot of rich people living there - why cant they support the programs that have passed through their legislature? And does this represent what could happen on a larger scale if the California experiment goes national.

Discuss.

The article ignores two salient features of California's government which are not replicated at the federal level:

1. The budget must be passed by 2/3rds of the state legislature. No one will make hard choices if that's the case.

2. Voter-initiated constitutional referendums are too easy to call, and they have the ability to burden the state with unfunded mandates. This also results in requiring constitutional amendments to get spending under control, which the voters rejected there.

That set of facts make it harder to believe that this could happen federally, because programs can be shut down by a bare majority of legislators if the federal government even gets too close to such a scenario.

[Methais]

http://stopsocialism.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/muslim51.jpg

[Warriorbird]

Because cutting taxes totally helps with budget shortfalls...

[Methais]

Because cutting taxes totally helps with budget shortfalls...

Tell us what raising taxes does then, other than resulting in people spending less, resulting in more jobs being cut, etc.

[Bhuryn]

Because cutting taxes totally helps with budget shortfalls...

Maybe if they you know, spent less money? I know it's a tough solution to a tough problem.

[AnticorRifling]

Maybe if they you know, spent less money? I know it's a tough solution to a tough problem.
Sounds like a simple answer to a complex problem. Spend less where? Who doesn't get the funds they need? Why is one area of greater importance than another? Which government job is cut and which is saved? What impact does this have, etc. etc. etc.

[Methais]

Sounds like a simple answer to a complex problem. Spend less where? Who doesn't get the funds they need? Why is one area of greater importance than another? Which government job is cut and which is saved? What impact does this have, etc. etc. etc.

Doing research on why pigs stink will just have to wait, for example.

[Bhuryn]

Sounds like a simple answer to a complex problem. Spend less where? Who doesn't get the funds they need? Why is one area of greater importance than another? Which government job is cut and which is saved? What impact does this have, etc. etc. etc.

Answer is simple too. Let the market handle all those things the government mismanages now.

[4a6c1]

California gets what it deserves.

*point. laugh*

[Androidpk]

1. Legalize and tax.
2. ???
3. Profit.

[Kembal]

Answer is simple too. Let the market handle all those things the government mismanages now.

Curious. Outside of agriculture, what could the market do right now that the federal government is supposedly mismanaging? (I actually do think the government is mismanaging agriculture with the annual farm subsidy and distorting the market tremendously there, but I can't really think of any other areas of complaint beyond that)

I get that, in your view, the federal government is mismanaging a lot of things (national defense spending, education spending, etc.) but many of those things are a) things that you can't give to the market or b) areas of shared federal and state responsibility. I'm genuinely curious to understand from you what you think the market could take over that the federal government has primary control over right now.

[Bhuryn]

Curious. Outside of agriculture, what could the market do right now that the federal government is supposedly mismanaging? (I actually do think the government is mismanaging agriculture with the annual farm subsidy and distorting the market tremendously there, but I can't really think of any other areas of complaint beyond that)

I get that, in your view, the federal government is mismanaging a lot of things (national defense spending, education spending, etc.) but many of those things are a) things that you can't give to the market or b) areas of shared federal and state responsibility. I'm genuinely curious to understand from you what you think the market could take over that the federal government has primary control over right now.

Just look at the departments and get rid of most of them.

Add in most of the welfare paid out, blah blah.

Lifes rough, if you try and take care of everything for everyone guess what happens? Nothing gets taken care of in the end. Why is it that we think only the soldiers have to sacrifice for freedom?

[Parkbandit]

Just look at the departments and get rid of most of them.

Add in most of the welfare paid out, blah blah.

Lifes rough, if you try and take care of everything for everyone guess what happens? Nothing gets taken care of in the end. Why is it that we think only the soldiers have to sacrifice for freedom?

Shit happens. Welfare, food stamps, HUD, etc.. were meant to be safety nets for people who needed a helping hand to get them back on their feet. Unfortunately, too many people have been using it as their "job" and have perfected milking the system.

[Tsa`ah]

The article ignores two salient features of California's government which are not replicated at the federal level:

1. The budget must be passed by 2/3rds of the state legislature. No one will make hard choices if that's the case.

2. Voter-initiated constitutional referendums are too easy to call, and they have the ability to burden the state with unfunded mandates. This also results in requiring constitutional amendments to get spending under control, which the voters rejected there.

That set of facts make it harder to believe that this could happen federally, because programs can be shut down by a bare majority of legislators if the federal government even gets too close to such a scenario.

We could also delve into California's budgeting issues being in excess of 5-6 months old as well.

The article conveniently neglects the last eight years and does nothing more than place the "ribbon of failure" on a non-existent system based on the performance a state system that has been nothing but a ticking time bomb just short of a decade.


Shit happens. Welfare, food stamps, HUD, etc.. were meant to be safety nets for people who needed a helping hand to get them back on their feet. Unfortunately, too many people have been using it as their "job" and have perfected milking the system.

Ya ... fuck the kids.

[RichardCranium]

Ya ... fuck the kids.

Why can't people take care of their own fucking kids? Or not have them if they're not financially able to in the first place?

[Parkbandit]

Ya ... fuck the kids.

Yea! If you don't like bloated handout programs that are over run with theft and fraud, U MUST HATE THE POOR KIDS!

[Tsa`ah]

Why can't people take care of their own fucking kids? Or not have them if they're not financially able to in the first place?

I'm not suggesting absolving people of parental responsibility (which includes providing for your children) ... I just think tossing around myths and beliefs based on hearsay and ill informed observation is just a crappy means of condemning a system even though innocent children get flushed in the process.

Bitch about welfare, ignorantly at that, and then if you happen to get your way ... you'll start bitching about the homeless starving kids on the curb.


Yea! If you don't like bloated handout programs that are over run with theft and fraud, U MUST HATE THE POOR KIDS!

Yet welfare programs make up less than 2% (closer to 1) of state and federal spending. The fraud you're so adamant about is largely vendor fraud. Recipient fraud is less than 5%.

Of all the things to bitch about, you pick one of the least expensive. Why exactly aren't you calling for our armed forces to be dismantled?

In a nutshell ... it's because you're a clueless bigoted fuck that bought Reagan's "welfare queen" schtick hook line and sinker.

[Rocktar]

OK, here we go, first, some clarifications. There is no such thing as “areas of shared federal and state responsibility”. There is simply a case of the Federal Government stepped in, took over, confiscated funding sources and dictated actions using only the states “shared responsibility” as a means of avoiding any blame for failure. For examples of this, look to the Department of Education and the Department of Transportation.

Now that we have that cleared up, some examples of things where the market seems to be able to do better than the government:

First, Education: A couple years back, and I forget the exact year, in a campaign that had a point about school vouchers, it was brought up that the highest rated, most exclusive private school in Virginia up by DC, in the high class neighborhood where politicians, diplomats and so on live, charged a little over $9000 per year in tuition. That same year, the DC public school system spent a little over $9000 per student. The DC school system has many buildings in disrepair, far more students per teacher and a far lower level of outcome from the students. Now, adjusting for attitude and motivational factors, you still can’t explain the discrepancy. Oh, and the private school offered equal or superior benefits and retirement options.

Health Care: Private insurance plans cover more people than public care does and while generating a large profit margin for their stock holders, still manage to do things like pay for preventative care and basic services far better than public care. Specifically, you can’t get preventative dental care under the public care systems I know of, however, you can get medications and emergency care for an abscessed tooth that has caused a general septic infection and requires hospitalization. I would like to see an improvement in the system but I really don’t think that turning the whole thing over to the people that have mismanaged such things as welfare and education is a good idea.

Welfare: Most charitable organizations make public the records of how much of each dollar contributed goes to provide benefits to recipients. There is no standard for efficiency, much like the government, however, a great deal of them reach and exceed levels of 80% or better. This means that 80 cents or more of every dollar goes to a person in need, and only 20 cents or less goes to administration costs. I am pretty sure that there is no government agency that can claim that less than 20% of its budget is taken by administrative costs and if so, very few. I am sure that we could help more people if it didn’t cost so much to help people.

Lotteries: First off, lotteries are a voluntary poor tax, plain and simple, or, alternately, a tax on people that are bad at math. The most generous lotteries, not the scratch off tickets and such, the pick numbers and match them to the ones drawn types, have odds far in excess of 8 million to one. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning, bitten by a poisonous spider, killed by a catastrophic meteor strike on the earth and other such things than winning. Now, these government run lotteries only return a portion of the funds collected. Most return far less than 50% and they supplement the winnings by using an annuity or bond package to generate long term income that they can add up to claim that their prize is in fact larger than it is. The worst part is, that 50% is given back AFTER all administrative costs are paid. Me, I know for a fact that I could organize, advertize and run a lottery and return something on the order of 90% of the collected ticket sales and STILL make a huge huge profit for myself. Want proof, slot machines in Vegas must give back a specified percentage of income as winnings. Some casinos advertize their return rates and some go as high as 97% and you can be very sure that the casinos are still making a ton of money off of slot machines.

The list goes on and on, but perhaps this serves the point. Our government is very wasteful. A large part of that waste is due to irrational procedural requirements, wasteful and outdated standards and excessive record keeping requirements. A quick example is the need for one administrator for every teacher due to paper work requirements. If large portions of government were opened up to competition from the private sector, I am sure that we could get a lot more bang for our buck. Some things need a central control, many do not and a large portion of all of it could use a large update of standards, practices and modern technology.

[Rocktar]

Yet welfare programs make up less than 2% (closer to 1) of state and federal spending. The fraud you're so adamant about is largely vendor fraud. Recipient fraud is less than 5%

Where the fuck did you pull this mythical number from? Based on government data from the last few years, Welfare, aka housing, food stamps, unemployment, SS and a load of other programs took upwards of something like 500 billion of a total budget of close to 3 trillion, and the 3 trillion included debt service on the debt, even so, 500 billion is way more than 2% of 3 trillion. More like 15% of the total or, after debt service, something like 20-20%. Damn, and they say I pull numbers out of MY ass. Dude, you are just making shit up, or quoting some myopic Liberal/Socialist rag that picked up one single program or some such shit.

Oh, and some sources to back up my comments so you can blow it our your ass about me making things up:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_chart_40.html
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461536304/u_s_government_spending.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Pretty much everyone shoots down your load of crap.

[Geshron]

Why can't people take care of their own fucking kids? Or not have them if they're not financially able to in the first place?

This is why I am fully pro-choice. I think a stupid person is less stupid for having an abortion than to burden us taxpayer's with their mistakes. End of story. With bureaucracy nowadays the red tape to terminate a pregnancy will continue to stack up. Even with a pro-choice administration.

The real answer is to swell the ranks and maintain the lineage of the Christian army. God said so, better get right on it!

[Mikalmas]

This took about 3 seconds to find:

Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed.


http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

From the American Psychological Association, unless you consider them "some myopic Liberal/Socialist rag"

[Bhuryn]

This took about 3 seconds to find:

Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed.


http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

From the American Psychological Association, unless you consider them "some myopic Liberal/Socialist rag"

It's only 12 years old.

[Warriorbird]

Doesn't stop middle class entitlements from being a lot fucking bigger than welfare.

[Bhuryn]

Doesn't stop middle class entitlements from being a lot fucking bigger than welfare.

Hey, I didn't exclude it, I'm not a fan of any entitlements.

[Tsa`ah]

...

:yawn:

You need to pay attention to your links. It seems you fail worse than I do when it comes to accounting. What's more, you're lumping things that should not be lumped.

For fy 2008 there was an estimated total of 2.66 trillion in receipts.

927.2 billion in FICA (which we can deduct from your numbers)
994b {9.7%) spent, leaving 66.8b in deficit spending. This is not welfare spending.

Medicade/State childrens healthcare is also not welfare spending, or at least not the sort of spending rife with this "fraud" everyone is talking about. Never the less ... 209b (5.6%).

324b (1.8%) spent on actual welfare programs ... that include unemployment, welfare, and other misc mandatory expenses.

HUD, you're housing figure, had a budget of 35.2 billion for fy 2008, only 16b of that was section 8 costs.

So we're looking at 340b in welfare costs ... that are not entirely welfare costs ... and we haven't even delved into administrative costs that are taken from these budgets. Helll, 16b for section 8 housing drops after 1.35b in administrative costs.

Get your numbers right, and know what the hell they mean.

As for you posts prior to this ... pretty damned frightening how out of touch they are. Maybe you can get some bonus points for sharing W's budget for education in 2008.

[Fallen]

This is why I am fully pro-choice. I think a stupid person is less stupid for having an abortion than to burden us taxpayer's with their mistakes. End of story. With bureaucracy nowadays the red tape to terminate a pregnancy will continue to stack up. Even with a pro-choice administration.

The real answer is to swell the ranks and maintain the lineage of the Christian army. God said so, better get right on it!

Agreed. An acceptance and proliferation of worldwide birth control would go a great deal towards fixing a LOT of the world's problems. So many countries breed themselves deeper and deeper into poverty. I need to find a charity which promotes sex education, and the spread of contraceptives to support. Anyone have any suggestions?

[Tsa`ah]

Anyone have any suggestions?

Any pro-education non-pro-life candidate.

[Fallen]

Any pro-education non-pro-life candidate.

Hard to support politics in third-world countries. I mean a charity which makes available birth control measures and sex education in the poorest areas.

[Tsa`ah]

Family planning

[Fallen]

Family planning

Thanks. I will do some googling.

[Tsa`ah]

It's a good program ... but it's not going to have the impact you're looking for. People generally turn to family planning AFTER the fact.

The best impact that can be made is in the schools. That won't happen so long as we allow churches to interfere in government. Just look at what the right side of pro-life did ... abstinence first programs, ignore contraception.

There is no one charity or social service you can donate to with much of an impact. You have to do it on a government/legislative level. So long as the candidate you're voting for is pro-life from the religious right ... well we're destined to make Idiocracy a reality.

That's not to say all pro-lifers are anti-contraception (abstinence only).

[Fallen]

It's a good program ... but it's not going to have the impact you're looking for. People generally turn to family planning AFTER the fact.

The best impact that can be made is in the schools. That won't happen so long as we allow churches to interfere in government. Just look at what the right side of pro-life did ... abstinence first programs, ignore contraception.

There is no one charity or social service you can donate to with much of an impact. You have to do it on a government/legislative level. So long as the candidate you're voting for is pro-life from the religious right ... well we're destined to make Idiocracy a reality.

That's not to say all pro-lifers are anti-contraception (abstinence only).

I'm noticing that. I believe that while Birth control and use of contraceptives is important in America, it is far more important in the poorest countries of the world, where it looks like Family Planning (Planned Parenthood) isn't heavily involved. I find it very odd there isn't a major charitable organization whose sole function is to promote the widespread use and distribution of contraceptives to impoverished nations. If ever there was a charity I would support, it would be that one. Obviously, sexual education in these areas is also important, but not so much as the spread of devices which can slow the flood of rising populations.

[Warriorbird]

There was a government backed effort in India that was pretty intense, I believe. There've been some efforts in some of the African countries.

[Fallen]

There was a government backed effort in India that was pretty intense, I believe. There've been some efforts in some of the African countries.

I have to imagine there are efforts to enact these types of programs, I just find it odd there isn't a mainstream organization which spearheads this type of work internationally. Do you guys think it could be a factor of efforts by the religious elements of this country, along with resistance to such measures in foreign countries?

[Warriorbird]

Yes.

[Fallen]

Eh, I fail at googling. Apparently, I was just looking at the UK part of the page. This seems to be the most appropriate charity to what I have in mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Planned_Parenthood_Federation

Reading their official site, this charity touches on some aspects of population control, but seems far more focused on the issues of Aids, and safe abortions. Important issues, but population control isn't really a big factor in their work. I guess it is just a contraversial subject, in that no charity wants to spell out that it is trying to prevent the birth of children into impoverished situations by means of contraception.

[Kembal]

Now that we have that cleared up, some examples of things where the market seems to be able to do better than the government:

First, Education: A couple years back, and I forget the exact year, in a campaign that had a point about school vouchers, it was brought up that the highest rated, most exclusive private school in Virginia up by DC, in the high class neighborhood where politicians, diplomats and so on live, charged a little over $9000 per year in tuition. That same year, the DC public school system spent a little over $9000 per student. The DC school system has many buildings in disrepair, far more students per teacher and a far lower level of outcome from the students. Now, adjusting for attitude and motivational factors, you still can’t explain the discrepancy. Oh, and the private school offered equal or superior benefits and retirement options.

While I don't know the DC public schools cost of educating one student, I do question the tuition cost of 9000 per student at the private school. Here's the tuition cost of three of the top rated DC private schools:

Sidwell Friends: $28,442 for elementary, $29,442 for middle and high school
Georgetown Day: $27,445 for elementary, $28,550 for middle, and $29,395 for high school (slightly higher for 12th grade)
Maret: $24,695 K-4, $26,780 5-8, $28,430 9-12

This is not including additional fees, such as textbooks, maintenance, and other items.

Links to data:
Sidwell: http://www.sidwell.edu/admissions/tuition.asp
Georgetown Day: http://www.gds.org/adm/tuition.cfm
Maret: http://www.maret.org/admission/affording_maret/index.aspx

So yeah, I think your argument is dead in the water there.

I don't have the time now to go through the health care and welfare arguments, though I think welfare's being discussed by others. I'll note that lotteries are a state thing, not a federal thing.

[Parkbandit]

Yet welfare programs make up less than 2% (closer to 1) of state and federal spending. The fraud you're so adamant about is largely vendor fraud. Recipient fraud is less than 5%.

We spent $483.4 billion dollars in 2008 on social handout programs. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_0.html#usgs30240

This does not include another $305 billion dollars spent on what is termed welfare vendor payments either... which brings the price tag up to $787 billion dollars.



Of all the things to bitch about, you pick one of the least expensive. Why exactly aren't you calling for our armed forces to be dismantled?


Far from one of the least expensive. And why on Earth would I ever call for our armed forces to be dismantled? Are you some sort of pinko pacifist who believes that we don't need our armed forces? Go suck some tree bark, fucking hippie.



In a nutshell ... it's because you're a clueless bigoted fuck that bought Reagan's "welfare queen" schtick hook line and sinker.

Wait.. I thought I was a child hater for even discussing the need for welfare reform.. now I'm a racist?

Seriously Shit4Brains.. it's good to have you back, with your pseudointellectualgooglexpertism.

[Drew]

This took about 3 seconds to find:

Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed.


http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

From the American Psychological Association, unless you consider them "some myopic Liberal/Socialist rag"


I find this extremely hard to believe. You're telling me that all the welfare programs like food stamps, social security, medicaid, medicare, senior prescription drug program, unemployment account for 1 percent of the federal budget? Like I said, that just doesn't make sense to me.

[radamanthys]

I find this extremely hard to believe. You're telling me that all the welfare programs like food stamps, social security, medicaid, medicare, senior prescription drug program, unemployment account for 1 percent of the federal budget? Like I said, that just doesn't make sense to me.

And don't forget the state-level taxes, too.

[Drew]

I find this extremely hard to believe. You're telling me that all the welfare programs like food stamps, social security, medicaid, medicare, senior prescription drug program, unemployment account for 1 percent of the federal budget? Like I said, that just doesn't make sense to me.

Ok according to this budget pie chart:

http://www.concordcoalition.org/files/uploaded_for_nodes/images/FedBud_RevandOut_FY07.jpg

Social security, medicare/medicaid, and income security account for 48% of government spending. That's a whole hell of a lot more than 1%.

[AnticorRifling]

What I don't get is how the government can have it's books so out of whack. Shouldn't what's spent = what's taken in? I know I'm dumbing it down but shit that's nuts.

[Gan]

Not when you can print your owm $ and have a guaranteed income stream from future taxes. Aside from personal and constituent pork.

[radamanthys]

What I don't get is how the government can have it's books so out of whack. Shouldn't what's spent = what's taken in? I know I'm dumbing it down but shit that's nuts.

If people payed attention, they'd be furious.

[Daniel]

The inability to find a percentage point in this thread is astounding.

[AnticorRifling]

The inability to find a percentage point in this thread is astounding. 44.6% 46.6% Clearly there is a difference of 2 percentage points. These numbers are not tied to anything but I hope I've laid to rest your fear of the missing point. :)

[Daniel]

I have to imagine there are efforts to enact these types of programs, I just find it odd there isn't a mainstream organization which spearheads this type of work internationally. Do you guys think it could be a factor of efforts by the religious elements of this country, along with resistance to such measures in foreign countries?

Uh...

There are plenty. Look up Unicef or CARE if you want an independent organization.

[Daniel]

44.6% 46.6% Clearly there is a difference of 2 percentage points. These numbers are not tied to anything but I hope I've laid to rest your fear of the missing point. :)

Fucking marines.

[Parkbandit]

The inability to find a percentage point in this thread is astounding.

That's why I don't deal with percentages... they are misleading and can be minimized or maximized depending on what your personal feelings about the topic are.

[Warriorbird]

Social Security and the other middle class entitlements don't = welfare, Drew. The quoted amount was regarding the money spent on welfare... which in comparison to the Social Security monstrosity is not very high.

[radamanthys]

2010 budget:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf

Over the next 4 years we'll be paying 2 trillion in interest on manditory programs. Fun, eh?

[Kembal]

I find this extremely hard to believe. You're telling me that all the welfare programs like food stamps, social security, medicaid, medicare, senior prescription drug program, unemployment account for 1 percent of the federal budget? Like I said, that just doesn't make sense to me.

I think you're broadly defining welfare here. Social Security and Medicare (including Part D, which is the prescription drug program) are not based on income levels, but on age. Medicaid is not generally classified as welfare, but for the purposes of your argument, we can consider it that way. And I think unemployment benefits are generally done at the state level? (At least, we pay a UI tax to Texas, not federal.)

Welfare is generally considered food stamps, Section 8, and such. And it's really not that much of the federal budget.

[Bhuryn]

Don't you wish you could borrow limitless amounts of money and never have to worry about paying the bills beyond some interest? If that gets to bad you can just borrow more money to pay the interest.

[Methais]

Don't you wish you could borrow limitless amounts of money and never have to worry about paying the bills beyond some interest? If that gets to bad you can just borrow more money to pay the interest.

http://coloradoright.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/obama-economic-plan.jpg
http://www.airrington.com/image/ObamaEconomy.jpg

[Lumi]

I have to imagine there are efforts to enact these types of programs, I just find it odd there isn't a mainstream organization which spearheads this type of work internationally. Do you guys think it could be a factor of efforts by the religious elements of this country, along with resistance to such measures in foreign countries?

Absolutely.

[Methais]

Yeah, because the tea parties have nothing to do with people being pissed off about the ridiculous amount of wasteful spending and power grabs the government is doing and wanting us to pay for.

Just because the taxes on your paycheck (supposedly) aren't going up doesn't mean he's not raising your taxes. Cap & trade is a perfect example, and Obama's agenda relies on people being asleep at the wheel and having their head in the sand, which is why he wants to rush everything through now, before people wake up.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah, because the tea parties have nothing to do with people being pissed off about the ridiculous amount of wasteful spending and power grabs the government is doing.

Pretty much. Freedom Works was funded to QQ by corporations. Stay with your indignation though. They care about you. Really!

[Methais]

Pretty much. Freedom Works was funded to QQ by corporations. Stay with your indignation though. They care about you. Really!

Golly, I didn't realize that the reason I'm pissed off at what Obama is doing is because of some big corporation that caused me to think that way instead of me thinking for myself, before the tea parties were even around. Thanks, you just saved my life!

http://www.cracked.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mccain_sad.jpg

[radamanthys]

I'm so glad that there's an America where you can believe in astroturf... protests organized by business for their interests... and be convinced that things would be so much better if Republicans were in charge.

I saw a nice summation of it by Chuck Collins at the Institute for Policy Studies:



[/img]http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/wtf08.jpg[/img]

[/img]http://www.theseminal.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/bbcstill1-400x266.png[/img]

Way to get pimped.

I had no idea that the Koch family was in my brain. I'll have to do something about that.

In my opinion, the grassroots movement started around ron paul.

This is liberal propaganda from IPS, a liberal-exclusive think-tank. I'm not really surprised that you'd take that for 100% truth.

[Parkbandit]

Pretty much. Freedom Works was funded to QQ by corporations. Stay with your indignation though. They care about you. Really!

I don't understand how you can be understandably irritated by the amounts of money Bush was spending to excusing Obama's drunken sailor spending. Shows that you are nothing more than a Party boy and will pretty much regurgitate whatever they spoon feed you.

[Warriorbird]

So, Methais... you're really mad that rich people are getting a tax increase... you're getting a tax cut... and your corporation isn't even going to be effected by "Cap and Trade" in the way you think it will... it won't effect your bottom line at all.

Where was this indignation when Bush was pouring away money?

Oh wait... you just got stirred up by the chance to 'be an activist.' and he's easier to hate because he's the liberal black guy.

I'm sorry you guys can't see the yourselves getting played. Maybe PB actually merits some indignation... but he's going to dodge these taxes anyways. Don't let him lie and say he won't.

[radamanthys]

So, Methais... you're really mad that rich people are getting a tax increase... you're getting a tax cut... and your corporation isn't even going to be effected by "Cap and Trade" in the way you think it will... it won't effect your bottom line at all.

Where was this indignation when Bush was pouring away money?

Oh wait... you just got stirred up by the chance to 'be an activist.' and he's easier to hate because he's the liberal black guy.

I'm sorry you guys can't see the yourselves getting played. Maybe PB actually merits some indignation... but he's going to dodge these taxes anyways. Don't let him lie and say he won't.

You seriously believe that all republicans/conservatives are racists, don't you?

The wool is heavy on this one's eyes. The party-line is really blinding you to any other message, isn't it.

[Parkbandit]

Where was this indignation when Bush was pouring away money?


I just had to quote this before you realize what kind of pathetic hypocrite you are.

PS - Unlike you, my stance on government spending has been consistent throughout my posting history on this forum. Your transformation, on the other hand, was a spectacular 180 as soon as Obama opened up our wallet.

[Warriorbird]

You seriously believe that all republicans/conservatives are racists, don't you?.

No. I wouldn't suggest anything of the sort. I don't even think of Methais as particularly racist. I remember contributions to the offensive jokes thread... questionable lines from him about 'black people not trying.'

Do some people fall into thinking things easier regarding some races than others? Of course. I mean, hell, there's a bunch of conservatives telling me that we all do. This is more an expression of that. Having 4Chan around telling Methais that laughing about black people is great and that using the n word is just fine probably helps.

Being on the Internet means you can say just about anything after all.

::

You were totally posting about Bush's government spending ALL the time, PB. Really!

You've missed my oft repeated line about preferring to waste the money on America than Middle Eastern people who don't care about us or companies who aren't even paying taxes.

It's pretty similar to how active you were regarding Bush's spending.

[Methais]

So, Methais... you're really mad that rich people are getting a tax increase... you're getting a tax cut... and your corporation isn't even going to be effected by "Cap and Trade" in the way you think it will... it won't effect your bottom line at all.

Everyone is going to be effected by cap & trade, because it's a gigantic energy tax that's going to be passed onto consumers. Feel free to explain to me how I'm totally wrong, and why things like gasoline, utility bills, etc. aren't going to go up in price.

Also, when I think of "rich people", I think of people who are really rich, not a small business owner making $250k a year, which is what a lot if not most of the people who will be getting a tax increase are, which will end up with jobs being cut because said small businesses will have to make cuts somewhere to make up for their increased taxes. Or maybe they'll just raise their prices.


Where was this indignation when Bush was pouring away money?

Oh wait... you just got stirred up by the chance to 'be an activist.' and he's easier to hate because he's the liberal black guy.

You're right, I hate Obama because he's black and I'm just a huge racist for not agreeing with him, and it has nothing at all to do with what he's trying to do to our country.


I'm sorry you guys can't see the yourselves getting played.

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/10/20/633601391094754306-irony.jpg


Having 4Chan around telling Methais that laughing about black people is great and that using the n word is just fine probably helps.

You're right, I never laughed at black jokes or anything similar until 4Chan or the Internets came around.

http://holycrapthatsfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/facepalm.jpg

[Warriorbird]

Once again... so where was your indignation when Bush charged every family in the country the price of a decent car for the Iraq War?

Oh wait...

a 3% tax increase for 5% of the wealthiest is 100% tyranny!

I'm now invested in one of the companies that's going to be contracted to do the work for cap and trade. If you're not already failing at levels regarding emissions it isn't going to be very bad at all.

Many companies will even make money off of it.

[Methais]

Once again... so where was your indignation when Bush charged every family in the country the price of a decent car for the Iraq War?

Oh wait...

a 3% tax increase for 5% of the wealthiest is 100% tyranny!

You seriously believe only rich people are gonna get taxed?

[Warriorbird]

Well... if the Republicans block tax cuts (talk about hilarity!) it won't be true. Otherwise? Yes.

Do you seriously believe that John McCain wouldn't have been spending epic amounts, just differently directed?

(bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!)

[radamanthys]

Well... if the Republicans block tax cuts (talk about hilarity!) it won't be true. Otherwise? Yes.

Do you seriously believe that John McCain wouldn't have been spending epic amounts, just differently directed?

(bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!)

How on earth can we afford a tax cut with all the spending/debt? It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.


And your party-line rhetoric has gotten to almost nauseating levels.

[Parkbandit]

Well... if the Republicans block tax cuts (talk about hilarity!) it won't be true. Otherwise? Yes.

Do you seriously believe that John McCain wouldn't have been spending epic amounts, just differently directed?

(bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!)

This is a clear indication you know nothing about how the cap and trade bill works. Pretty sad, given your business ventures.

Do you seriously believe that John McCain would have bombed Iran by now?

[Methais]

Well... if the Republicans block tax cuts (talk about hilarity!) it won't be true. Otherwise? Yes.

Do you seriously believe that John McCain wouldn't have been spending epic amounts, just differently directed?

(bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!)

As opposed to..
http://granitegrok.com/pix/ObamaIran.jpg?

[Stanley Burrell]

Things are very serious. In California:

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/8284/redsquare1941.png

[Gan]

Well... if the Republicans block tax cuts (talk about hilarity!)

So you think we should have tax cuts right now?

[Warriorbird]

You guys love to talk about how they solve everything.

'Duh, let's fix the recession with tax cuts!'

'Or we could do nothing! Yes. Jesus! Awesomest shit ever!'

[radamanthys]

You guys love to talk about how they solve everything.

'Duh, let's fix the recession with tax cuts!'

'Or we could do nothing! Yes. Jesus! Awesomest shit ever!'

The government doesn't have to intervene in every matter of import in this country.

[Gan]

You guys love to talk about how they solve everything.

'Duh, let's fix the recession with tax cuts!'

'Or we could do nothing! Yes. Jesus! Awesomest shit ever!'

Try answering the question. It really helps people to understand you better.

[Warriorbird]

I have. A number of you (PB highest on the list) promptly ignore it. What's the point? Most especially nobody seems to get the difference between ideals and realpolitik.

I think some degree of stimulus had to happen. What we got wasn't perfect but it had a fair amount of decent stuff in it. Doing nothing is not the way to cure economies. I think both bailouts were stupid. I think tax-cuts can be an excellent tool IF paired with spending cuts. No Republican would ever do that though, and neither has Obama.

I see nothing wrong with a small tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. If you look slightly upstream from your own views you might see it as morale boosting for many of the Americans that don't fall into that category. Those Americans not spending is what we have to worry about. The economy is a mind game on a grand scale.

The wealthiest Americans are going to damn well avoid most any tax increase anyways. What do you think they pay legions of accountants and Keller for?

While Parkbandit may THINK he understands cap and trade... the reality is not nearly the Chicken Little scenario he paints. If you're already in pollution compliance (which most companies are, the standards are crazy loose) it isn't likely to do very much for you at all. If your company is doing very well environmentally, it may be even less bad. Most oil companies already meet these standards. Oil companies, folks.

I don't particularly like Obama's massive spending... but I prefer spending it on America than elsewhere.

You act as though McCain would do nothing regarding Iran... we'd already spent 400 million on Force Recon being in the country post the end of the Bush administration. They may be elite infiltration/reconaissance soldiers but they're definitely soldiers. I'm sure most of the military and ex military folks on the boards would agree.

I could definitely see McCain viewing war as a way out of recession.

[Gan]

I have. A number of you (PB highest on the list) promptly ignore it. What's the point? Most especially nobody seems to get the difference between ideals and realpolitik.
Much like a number of you like to stereotype and bandwagon. And yet, ideals oftentimes shape realpolitik, if you want to get technical.



I think tax-cuts can be an excellent tool IF paired with spending cuts. No Republican would ever do that though, and neither has Obama.
Finally, a clear answer from you. Do I hear angles singing in the background?



I don't particularly like Obama's massive spending... but I prefer spending it on America than elsewhere.
Time will tell how effective it was, and the results of the redistribution.

[Parkbandit]

Finally, a clear answer from you. Do I hear angles singing in the background?

Yet it's our fault he's never posted that and making fun of us who have posted that exact same formula out of this recession.

[NocturnalRob]

Gan, I just saw this, so forgive me if I go way back to the original post. I actually worked as Kevin's assistant at AEI in 2003 working on both an international tax database and a gun control white paper. I've always found him to be incredibly bright and communicative if slightly conservative in his views.

To address the point about DC private schools, that $9000 figure is way off. To further support the point: http://www.stalbansschool.org/home/content.asp?id=858

[Rocktar]

Despite the figure being way off, and I agree, AND EVEN SAID SO ya fucking goobs, go read the post, it was campaign information and was a while back, so, could have been as long as 10 years ago or more. It still does not change the basis of the point, pick any private school you want that costs the same as any public school, and if it is not a religious school, the odds are hugely in favor of the private school producing a lot better student. Most religious schools do as well, but there are, annoyingly, a large percentage of them that suck academically. So, as a point in favor of NOT turning anything else over to the government, the point is still valid.

Gods above I can't believe you people want to argue FOR turning more things over to the idiots that have mismanaged so much already. For fucks sake, grab ahold of both your ears, pull until you hear the popping sound, then stnad up straight and look around. I am sure that the view is much better than the previous one of the inside of your ass.

[Bhuryn]

Finally, a clear answer from you. Do I hear angles singing in the background?


Acute or Obtuse? :smilegrin:

[Parkbandit]

Acute or Obtuse? :smilegrin:

He was replying to Warriorbird.. so obviously Obtuse. There's nothing a cute about him.

:D

[Daniel]

Despite the figure being way off, and I agree, AND EVEN SAID SO ya fucking goobs, go read the post, it was campaign information and was a while back, so, could have been as long as 10 years ago or more. It still does not change the basis of the point, pick any private school you want that costs the same as any public school, and if it is not a religious school, the odds are hugely in favor of the private school producing a lot better student. Most religious schools do as well, but there are, annoyingly, a large percentage of them that suck academically. So, as a point in favor of NOT turning anything else over to the government, the point is still valid.

Gods above I can't believe you people want to argue FOR turning more things over to the idiots that have mismanaged so much already. For fucks sake, grab ahold of both your ears, pull until you hear the popping sound, then stnad up straight and look around. I am sure that the view is much better than the previous one of the inside of your ass.

Your argument rests on the assumption that private schools cost less than public schools. You have no evidence to support that position. So, no. Your point is not valid.

[radamanthys]

It's interesting: take cost per student. Where people whine about urban schools not having enough funding, private and even suburban publics most often spend less per student.

Our educational system is so fubar, I don't know what can save it. It's so much more complicated than just money. I guarantee that we could throw trillions at schools, and it wouldn't make one iota of difference.

I personally believe that it's the total subjugation of excellence, but that's just one factor. The silly federal mandates don't help, either. Teacher's unions fuck stuff up daily, too.

I do believe that reformation of drug laws would help save the schools. That's just a hypothesis, though.

Quick googling. (http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/education/policynote/04_milewski_publiceducation.html)

[Fallen]

I do believe that reformation of drug laws would help save the schools. That's just a hypothesis, though.

In terms of what? Altering the zero tolerance policy? Or do you a mean a change to the broader drug laws?

[radamanthys]

In terms of what? Altering the zero tolerance policy? Or do you a mean a change to the broader drug laws?

Broader laws. Take the crime culture out of the drugs, and you get far less criminals. Criminals make bad parents.

[NocturnalRob]

Criminals shouldn't be parents.
There ya go.

[Fallen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by radamanthys http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=964626#post964626)
Criminals shouldn't be parents.



There ya go.

You know, I've always been a proponent of sterilization of our prison population.

[NocturnalRob]

no. but i'm a proponent of capital punishment.

[Tsa`ah]

We spent $483.4 billion dollars in 2008 on social handout programs. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...html#usgs30240

This does not include another $305 billion dollars spent on what is termed welfare vendor payments either... which brings the price tag up to $787 billion dollars.

Ummm ... are you shitting us with the claim that you own and operate your own business? Please tell us you have absolutely nothing to do with book keeping if it is true.

First you call into question your ability to read, then it's the inability to listen to the spoken word and disseminate any sort of fact, now you're using some sort of tard math (maybe adding figures from the drill downs back into the total sums .... and then suggesting you pay state taxes in every state and territory ... which would explain your initial figure of 483.4b to an extent ... I guess).

Without knowing exactly what you're referring to, we can only assume you don't know how to follow along in the budget breakdown, or you just can't add. I'm guessing both.


Far from one of the least expensive. And why on Earth would I ever call for our armed forces to be dismantled? Are you some sort of pinko pacifist who believes that we don't need our armed forces? Go suck some tree bark, fucking hippie.

Well, to be fair, education wasn't even a tenth of a percent ... but the point that escaped you (which is par for course) is that you're bitching about fraud and welfare ... and the desire to get rid of it because of the "massive fraud" (which is largely anecdotal) ... yet you're not calling for more expensive programs to be scrapped that ARE actually riddled with fraud.


I find this extremely hard to believe. You're telling me that all the welfare programs like food stamps, social security, medicaid, medicare, senior prescription drug program, unemployment account for 1 percent of the federal budget? Like I said, that just doesn't make sense to me.

We're talking specifically of welfare (the program that is apparently rife with fraud), and for kicks I threw in HUD's section 8 budget.


And don't forget the state-level taxes, too.

Unless you pay taxes in all 50 states in addition to US territories ... no.

[radamanthys]

no. but i'm a proponent of capital punishment.

It'd do wonders for the recidivation rate.

[Parkbandit]

Ummm ... are you shitting us with the claim that you own and operate your own business? Please tell us you have absolutely nothing to do with book keeping if it is true.

First you call into question your ability to read, then it's the inability to listen to the spoken word and disseminate any sort of fact, now you're using some sort of tard math (maybe adding figures from the drill downs back into the total sums .... and then suggesting you pay state taxes in every state and territory ... which would explain your initial figure of 483.4b to an extent ... I guess).

Without knowing exactly what you're referring to, we can only assume you don't know how to follow along in the budget breakdown, or you just can't add. I'm guessing both.


For a pseudointellectualgooglexpert you often portray on these boards.. it should be rather easy for someone of your limited common sense to be able to click on a link. Come on man, really? I hope your real job at the hotel is stocking the breakfast bar, because quite frankly, I don't think you are qualified for much more.



Well, to be fair, education wasn't even a tenth of a percent ... but the point that escaped you (which is par for course) is that you're bitching about fraud and welfare ... and the desire to get rid of it because of the "massive fraud" (which is largely anecdotal) ... yet you're not calling for more expensive programs to be scrapped that ARE actually riddled with fraud.

Hey.. can you suggest a complete dismantling of our armed forces again.. because that naive shit never gets old.

And your excuse that you aren't paying taxes in all 50 states, so you can't include the state or local contributions is retarded, since we're talking about the entire welfare system needs an overall.. not just the contribution I am making towards it.

[Warriorbird]

It's been overhauled pretty damn well. Social Security and Medicare/caid are what need a look. They're the elephants in the room to both parties though.

[Bhuryn]

It's been overhauled pretty damn well. Social Security and Medicare/caid are what need a look. They're the elephants in the room to both parties though.

Just make them optional programs and be done with it.

[Warriorbird]

An actually effective ID card system would be handy too. But we can't have that! It'd stop the illegal immigrants!

[Bhuryn]

An actually effective ID card system would be handy too. But we can't have that! It'd stop the illegal immigrants!

Easier way to stop illegal immegration. Stop the handouts.

[CrystalTears]

An actually effective ID card system would be handy too. But we can't have that! It'd stop the illegal immigrants!
Who exactly are you mocking here? Why don't you just say what you mean instead of throwing out these little sarcastic barbs with no meaning?

[NocturnalRob]

There's no way to stop the illegals now. Thanks a lot, Franken!!

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/2415/illegalsvotedemocratmq6.jpg

[radamanthys]

There's no way to stop the illegals now. Thanks a lot, Franken!!

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/2415/illegalsvotedemocratmq6.jpg

ROFL

[Daniel]

Easier way to stop illegal immegration. Stop the handouts.

If only life were so simple.

[Bhuryn]

If only life were so simple.

Or we could stop electing idiots.

[Parkbandit]

Or we could stop electing idiots.

Good luck with that.

[Daniel]

Or we could stop electing idiots.

Start a campaign.

[Bhuryn]

Start a campaign.

Not 35 yet.

[Daniel]

Not 35 yet.

Shooting a little high out the gate?

[NocturnalRob]

Shooting a little high out the gate?
Well, I dunno. Is Bhuryn a minority?

[Bhuryn]

Well, I dunno. Is Bhuryn a minority?

If you consider Norse folks born in the US a Minority then I guess I am.

[NocturnalRob]

If you consider Norse folks born in the US a Minority then I guess I am.
mmm...do you look like this? because that would be fucking awesome.

http://lib.lbcc.edu/handouts/images/Vikings/vikings3.jpg

[Bhuryn]

Yeah, that's "dressed up" for me.

[4a6c1]

I thought you looked like Frank Sinatra. :(

[Bhuryn]

I thought you looked like Frank Sinatra. :(

I might.... Frank Sinatra with a horned helmet.

2781

[Warriorbird]

Who exactly are you mocking here? Why don't you just say what you mean instead of throwing out these little sarcastic barbs with no meaning?

Nobody on here. Just Congress. Sorry you didn't follow.

Tone's tough on the Internet. More bemused than any sarcasm right there.

[Methais]

I might.... Frank Sinatra with a horned helmet.

2781

That hat needs a limeatar on top of it in a serious way.

[Tsa`ah]

For a pseudointellectualgooglexpert you often portray on these boards.. it should be rather easy for someone of your limited common sense to be able to click on a link. Come on man, really? I hope your real job at the hotel is stocking the breakfast bar, because quite frankly, I don't think you are qualified for much more.

So what you're saying is that you can't explain how you attained the figures or what you're including in those figures.

We're talking about welfare. We're not talking about social security, medicare, or medicade. We're talking about the federal budget, not state budgets. We're talking generic total sums, not pulling the drill down and adding those figures back into the sum total ... again.

Three times you haven't been able to follow along, be it reading, listening, or basic mathematics ... this calls into question you ability to run a business.


Hey.. can you suggest a complete dismantling of our armed forces again.. because that naive shit never gets old.

And this further proves my assertion. No where did I suggest it, I questioned your logic and the basis for your reasoning pertaining to dissolving "welfare". In case you haven't figured it out ... the military has a higher rate of fraudulent costs in comparison to welfare.

I don't know a better method of explaining this simple shit to you .. other than giving my nephew some crayons.


And your excuse that you aren't paying taxes in all 50 states, so you can't include the state or local contributions is retarded, since we're talking about the entire welfare system needs an overall.. not just the contribution I am making towards it.

Dumb shit ... we're talking about the federal budget. You don't live in all 50 states, nor do all 50 states have the same budget or revenue sources for welfare.

You can't include FICA taxes, state or local taxes, property taxes, sales taxes ... because we're talking about WELFARE and the FEDERAL FUCKING BUDGET. We're talking about one system and one budget.

What is so fucking hard to understand? Oh wait ... it's you ... the resident dumb fuck who can't get off the same tired insults let alone update his jpeg files. Of course that would mean someone would have to post a jpeg you understood.

[radamanthys]

So what you're saying is that you can't explain how you attained the figures or what you're including in those figures.

We're talking about welfare. We're not talking about social security, medicare, or medicade. We're talking about the federal budget, not state budgets. We're talking generic total sums, not pulling the drill down and adding those figures back into the sum total ... again.

Three times you have been able to follow along, be it reading, listening, or basic mathematics ... this calls into question you ability to run a business.


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html#usgs302

Read this for where he got his numbers. You didn't follow the budget properly, not him.




And this further proves my assertion. No where did I suggest it, I questioned your logic and the basis for your reasoning pertaining to dissolving "welfare". In case you haven't figured it out ... the military has a higher rate of fraudulent costs in comparison to welfare.


I don't think that last statement is true, let alone "something to figure out". Yes, there might be fraud, but it's highly doubtful that there's a higher rate (I'd be happy to see some proof of that statement).

Remember when Ol' Dirty Bastard went with MTV in his limo to pick up his welfare check? Yea.




Dumb shit ... we're talking about the federal budget. You don't live in all 50 states, nor do all 50 states have the same budget or revenue sources for welfare.

You can't include FICA taxes, state or local taxes, property taxes, sales taxes ... because we're talking about WELFARE and the FEDERAL FUCKING BUDGET. We're talking about one system and one budget.

What is so fucking hard to understand? Oh wait ... it's you ... the resident dumb fuck who can't get off the same tired insults let alone update his jpeg files. Of course that would mean someone would have to post a jpeg you understood.

The definition of welfare:
"Government benefits distributed to impoverished persons to enable them to maintain a minimum standard of well-being."

Medicaid counts. TANF counts. A good chunk of the HHS budget counts. Certain education benefits count. Even more stuff counts. And it's all under different allocations within federal and state budgets. It's not <1%... the Women's affairs office of the Public Interest department of the APA (oh, I'm sure there's no advocate bias there) is wrong in their missive.

And since this thread topic is about California state as well as federal, both state and federal spending are on the table for discussion. Just because you decided to talk about federal doesn't mean that state spending isn't an issue either. Many federal regulations also require states to spend money. Think No Child Left Behind for one notable example.

Whatever, I'm trying to figure out what the heck else you're arguing for/against in order to respond, but I'm too tired. So that's all you get from me for now.

[Back]

So what you're saying is that you can't explain how you attained the figures or what you're including in those figures.

You are trying to argue with an Anarchist.

[radamanthys]

You are trying to argue with an Anarchist.

PB is an Anarchist?

[Back]

PB is an Anarchist?

No, I am talking about you. Everything you post about in political threads is anti-government. The government is wrong about this, too much into this other thing, and suppressing the capitalist market.

Dial 911 already.

[radamanthys]

No, I am talking about you. Everything you post about in political threads is anti-government. The government is wrong about this, too much into this other thing, and suppressing the capitalist market.

Dial 911 already.

*shrug*

I can see how it seems that way.

[Tsa`ah]

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html#usgs302

Read this for where he got his numbers. You didn't follow the budget properly, not him.

Dude, at least use the same year he was. FY 2008 is in the books ... and you're making the same mistake (well I assume). You can't include state budgets ... because we were talking about the FEDERAL BUDGET. We were specifically talking about welfare fraud .... meaning assistance checks/food stamps from WELFARE.


I don't think that last statement is true, let alone "something to figure out". Yes, there might be fraud, but it's highly doubtful that there's a higher rate (I'd be happy to see some proof of that statement).

Yes, because 125b misused in Iraqi reconstruction ... with of 50b mising, and we haven't touched tri-care fraud, marital status fraud, vetcare fraud ... Non-Iraq/Afghanistan contractor fraud. There is no "might" about it ... there simply is.

But let's just hold on to 50b. Senate (96) hearings found that arms contractors"lost" 13b in payments from the pentagon ... and the pentagon "mismanaged" 15b into thin air, both in a 10 year period from 1985-95, every single one of our top ten defense contractors in a twelve year span from 80-92 were convicted or admitted to defrauding the government ... and got off by repaying a few mill each.

I'm sorry, but one case of fraud committed by a contractor can run from a few hundred grand upwards to a few hundred million ... how many cases of welfare fraud has to occur to match the low end of the contractor fraud spectrum?

I'm sorry, but you can go through articles for weeks and come up with a larger amount of concrete fraud cases involving the military ... that will eventually surpass the 2008 welfare budget.


Remember when Ol' Dirty Bastard went with MTV in his limo to pick up his welfare check? Yea.

Because ODB was representative of every welfare recipient? Half of them? ... Go back and re-read my comments on hearsay and uneducated anecdotal observation.


The definition of welfare:
"Government benefits distributed to impoverished persons to enable them to maintain a minimum standard of well-being."

Medicaid counts. TANF counts. A good chunk of the HHS budget counts. Certain education benefits count. Even more stuff counts. And it's all under different allocations within federal and state budgets. It's not <1%... the Women's affairs office of the Public Interest department of the APA (oh, I'm sure there's no advocate bias there) is wrong in their missive.

And since this thread topic is about California state as well as federal, both state and federal spending are on the table for discussion. Just because you decided to talk about federal doesn't mean that state spending isn't an issue either. Many federal regulations also require states to spend money. Think No Child Left Behind for one notable example.

Whatever, I'm trying to figure out what the heck else you're arguing for/against in order to respond, but I'm too tired. So that's all you get from me for now.

Dude ... we're talking about the WELFARE budget. We're not talking about SSI, we're not talking about pensions, medicare, medicade ... we're talking about this "huge" amount of food stamp and living assistance "fraud" that comes from the FEDERAL WELFARE BUDGET.

We're talking about the FEDERAL budget because the FEDERAL budget was mentioned ... and no, No child left behind is a terrible example. Our state governments are just too fucking stupid to say no to the paltry federal contribution.

The problem with your argument, PB's, and drew's, is that you read the original statement (made by me) and then decided to change the thrust of my comment to incorporate figures that suited your argument. It's like you're trying to tell me the central figure in Michelangelo's second Pietà is really a chick, and you demonstrate this by submitting an image with photo shopped tits from the Madonna of the Stairs. It doesn't work that way slick.

[Parkbandit]

The problem with your argument, PB's, and drew's, is that you read the original statement (made by me) and then decided to change the thrust of my comment to incorporate figures that suited your argument. It's like you're trying to tell me the central figure in Michelangelo's second Pietà is really a chick, and you demonstrate this by submitting an image with photo shopped tits from the Madonna of the Stairs. It doesn't work that way slick.

Wait Shit4Brains, isnt't that EXACTLY what you've been doing in this entire thread? Here was my post you have based your stupidity on:


Yea! If you don't like bloated handout programs that are over run with theft and fraud, U MUST HATE THE POOR KIDS!

You've chosen to focus ONLY on Welfare and ONLY on the federal part.. when I was saying the entire system is fucked up. That doesn't work for your argument though.. since it is far more than the 1% you wanted to make it. You didn't make the original statement.. I did. From there, you chose to marginalize me by calling me a child hater, then a bigot.. when that didn't quite work out to your liking, you chose a small fraction of the handout programs to focus on, in an attempt to make it sound like it's not a problem and even if it was a problem, it's a tiny, tiny problem.

[Gan]

No, I am talking about you. Everything you post about in political threads is anti-government. The government is wrong about this, too much into this other thing, and suppressing the capitalist market.

Dial 911 already.

Pot meet kettle?

[CrystalTears]

Pot meet kettle?
He would have to know what capitalist means in the first place.

[AnticorRifling]

Back is pro government if that government let's the weed in.

[Rocktar]

Your argument rests on the assumption that private schools cost less than public schools. You have no evidence to support that position. So, no. Your point is not valid.

No you blithering moron, my point rests on the fact that public schools, in general, suck ass and that they people running the show should not be handedeven more things to fuck up.

I can't say it any simpler than that and you will STILL likely miss the fucking point. Government is not the answer to but a few limited questions. Letting a bunch of idiots with a track record of messing things up horribly have a chance to mess EVEN more things up horribly is idiotic. Someone defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Well, government, in general, does a piss poor job of most things, so handing them even MORE things and expecting them to do spectacular is insane.

I still can't believe that you are arguing FOR letting elected officials have more of your money, more control over your life and more of a chance to mess things up.

[radamanthys]

Yet welfare programs make up less than 2% (closer to 1) of state and federal spending. The fraud you're so adamant about is largely vendor fraud. Recipient fraud is less than 5%.

Of all the things to bitch about, you pick one of the least expensive. Why exactly aren't you calling for our armed forces to be dismantled?

In a nutshell ... it's because you're a clueless bigoted fuck that bought Reagan's "welfare queen" schtick hook line and sinker.

That was your original argument. You're the one trying to change the rules.

[Parkbandit]

That was your original argument. You're the one trying to change the rules.

Now now.. don't upset him with facts lest he call you a child hating bigot.

This thread is so full of win.. mostly from him. I am glad he is back.. he's filling in the Ashliana void in politics.

By the way.. when does It come back already!? Tsa'ah's stupidity will only last so long until even he realizes how fucking stupid he sounds and then he's off until he hopes people forget.

[Daniel]

No you blithering moron, my point rests on the fact that public schools, in general, suck ass and that they people running the show should not be handedeven more things to fuck up.

I can't say it any simpler than that and you will STILL likely miss the fucking point. Government is not the answer to but a few limited questions. Letting a bunch of idiots with a track record of messing things up horribly have a chance to mess EVEN more things up horribly is idiotic. Someone defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Well, government, in general, does a piss poor job of most things, so handing them even MORE things and expecting them to do spectacular is insane.

I still can't believe that you are arguing FOR letting elected officials have more of your money, more control over your life and more of a chance to mess things up.


That's your opinion unsubstantiated by fact. I could care less about hwat you can or can not believe as you obviously have a skewed perception on reality.

[Warriorbird]

The idea that 'public schools are inefficient' doesn't also necessarily make private schools more efficient.

[radamanthys]

The idea that 'public schools are inefficient' doesn't also necessarily make private schools more efficient.

Depends on what metric you choose to define 'efficient' by. I'm sure that public schools are far more efficient in detecting guns with metal detectors.

Cost per student at a private is most often less than at a public. The learning is often better at a private (or else why would people pay?). So you get better learning at less cost per student. Isn't that the efficiency you mean?

[Warriorbird]

Except putting private groups in charge of public schools often fails... and you have issues of ballooning costs with privatization, like the Iraq War.

[radamanthys]

Except putting private groups in charge of public schools often fails... and you have issues of ballooning costs with privatization, like the Iraq War.

Oh, I wasn't advocating privitization of all schools. Compulsory education is a good thing and only possible with public schooling.

I went to an awesome public school. Our graduation was in the wall street journal, hehe.

Though there are many public schools that do need help, I think the problem is endemic.

[Stanley Burrell]

Remember when Ol' Dirty Bastard went with MTV in his limo to pick up his welfare check? Yea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy8zlq4y6cU

[Kembal]

Despite the figure being way off, and I agree, AND EVEN SAID SO ya fucking goobs, go read the post, it was campaign information and was a while back, so, could have been as long as 10 years ago or more.

Actually, you never said anything about the figure being way off.


It still does not change the basis of the point, pick any private school you want that costs the same as any public school, and if it is not a religious school, the odds are hugely in favor of the private school producing a lot better student. Most religious schools do as well, but there are, annoyingly, a large percentage of them that suck academically. So, as a point in favor of NOT turning anything else over to the government, the point is still valid.

Actually, that still proves nothing. Family income levels can explain much of that.

There's no question that certain public school systems suck. There's no question that certain reforms to the public school system must be made.

However, to argue that private schools are automatically better at turning out better students ignores a lot of other data.


Gods above I can't believe you people want to argue FOR turning more things over to the idiots that have mismanaged so much already. For fucks sake, grab ahold of both your ears, pull until you hear the popping sound, then stnad up straight and look around. I am sure that the view is much better than the previous one of the inside of your ass.

After watching half of my B-school graduating class go off to Wall Street and subsequently doing the very bad trades and deals that blew up the economy, I laugh at the concept that these mismanaging idiots only exist in government. The private sector can mismanage things just as badly, and often does.

[Rocktar]

Again, nothing said here has anything even remotely to do with the point. The point of this whole thread and my examples were to illustrate the idea that the government is not the best manager of things and that we should not turn more things over to them to mismanage. You know important things like your personal health care and such. The point remains, the government is not the best solution and not a group of people that you want making those kinds of decisions for you, they have messed up a lot of things, so why give them a chance to mess this up as well?

How does any of this invalidate the point of my argument as originally stated?


<snippage>

Our government is very wasteful. A large part of that waste is due to irrational procedural requirements, wasteful and outdated standards and excessive record keeping requirements. A quick example is the need for one administrator for every teacher due to paper work requirements. If large portions of government were opened up to competition from the private sector, I am sure that we could get a lot more bang for our buck. Some things need a central control, many do not and a large portion of all of it could use a large update of standards, practices and modern technology.


Well, I am waiting. Simply put, it does not; you goobs are focusing on one single point that you think you can use to justify throwing out the baby with the bathwater and go about your merry little Socialist way down the path to destroying this country. Hate to tell you, the fact remains, government is wasteful, it could be a lot more efficient and it certainly isn’t the best solution to the majority of problems people want to foist off on it. Stop giving the government more things to mess up, stop letting them take our money and waste it and stop expecting them to improve without holding them accountable and kicking the leadership out regularly.


Oh, and Daniel, I have come to the conclusion that you are simply too stupid to breath and will proceed about your merry way down the Socialism gold brick road no matter what.

[Back]

Yeah. Buy Snake Oil. Its cheap and will cure all your ills.

[4a6c1]

Rocktar ANGRY. Rocktar EAT YOUR NOSE OFF.

[Back]

I have stock in Snake Oil LTD. Whut?

[Kembal]

Again, nothing said here has anything even remotely to do with the point. The point of this whole thread and my examples were to illustrate the idea that the government is not the best manager of things and that we should not turn more things over to them to mismanage. You know important things like your personal health care and such. The point remains, the government is not the best solution and not a group of people that you want making those kinds of decisions for you, they have messed up a lot of things, so why give them a chance to mess this up as well?

How does any of this invalidate the point of my argument as originally stated?

Well, I am waiting. Simply put, it does not; you goobs are focusing on one single point that you think you can use to justify throwing out the baby with the bathwater and go about your merry little Socialist way down the path to destroying this country. Hate to tell you, the fact remains, government is wasteful, it could be a lot more efficient and it certainly isn’t the best solution to the majority of problems people want to foist off on it. Stop giving the government more things to mess up, stop letting them take our money and waste it and stop expecting them to improve without holding them accountable and kicking the leadership out regularly.

Alright, your argument is that the government is more wasteful than the private sector, and thus letting it get involved in health insurance for everyone is a bad idea.

Notwithstanding the fact that the only thing on the table is that a public option (i.e. a government-run plan) should be offered in addition to the private plans out there, and thus nothing is getting replaced, let's take the argument that government administration is more wasteful.

How should we quantify waste in health insurance? My guess is that you'd look at the administrative costs of the organization running the insurance plan. Since the government runs Medicare, we can look at the administrative costs there versus privately-run Medicare Advantage insurance.


However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage.[16] This is a near perfect “apples to apples” comparison of administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population.

This is the article I got it from: http://institute.ourfuture.org/files/Jacob_Hacker_Public_Plan_Choice.pdf

This is the Congressional Budget Office study the article got the figures from:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7697/12-08-Medicare.pdf

So, what were you saying about waste again?

[Rocktar]

I say that I don't trust them to care for my health and if they offer everyone a government insurance option, then huge amounts of private options would dry up nearly instantly. After all, I know damn well that my employer would cease health care insurance instantly if they thought they could toss off the cost to the government. Thus, a public "option" is not an option, but in reality, a pure replacement.

I also do not trust the government to accuratly keep an eye on it's self and to account the numbers the same in instances where it seeks to present it's self to the public. Simply put, I really have a hard time believing that they being honest in their accounting and not pushing off costs in one area to another to hide them. This is something that has a long tradition in government spending.

[Warriorbird]

I was talking to a gaming friend from Denmark about government healthcare.

She's all, "Americans seem to think there's one choice or the other choice. Here you can either get free healthcare and not choose your doctor... or pay for it and choose your doctor. A little over half pay and insurance companies still make money."

Seemed pretty reasonable to me.

[4a6c1]

I was talking to a gaming friend from Denmark about government healthcare.

She's all, "Americans seem to think there's one choice or the other choice. Here you can either get free healthcare and not choose your doctor... or pay for it and choose your doctor. A little over half pay and insurance companies still make money."

Seemed pretty reasonable to me.

Excuse me. Stop making sense plz. Lets stay on track here. We hate Obama and everything he does is bad, mkay?

Also, you are a socialist, your friend is a socialist and Denmark (whoever that is) is definately a socialist.

[Gan]

I was talking to a gaming friend from Denmark about government healthcare.

She's all, "Americans seem to think there's one choice or the other choice. Here you can either get free healthcare and not choose your doctor... or pay for it and choose your doctor. A little over half pay and insurance companies still make money."

Seemed pretty reasonable to me.

When you say "pay for it", do you mean pay for it in addition to what you pay in taxes already? Or can you opt out of that tax in Denmark?

[Warriorbird]

You pay extra... but the extra isn't equivalent to what we pay for private insurance here.

[Gan]

You pay extra...

Thats all you had to say. ;)

[Kembal]

I say that I don't trust them to care for my health and if they offer everyone a government insurance option, then huge amounts of private options would dry up nearly instantly. After all, I know damn well that my employer would cease health care insurance instantly if they thought they could toss off the cost to the government. Thus, a public "option" is not an option, but in reality, a pure replacement.

Include a employer mandate and employers won't be able to skip out of paying for coverage. What they'll be able to demand is lower pricing, because the government-run public option will be less wasteful and thus cheaper. Insurance companies then scramble to offer lower cost plans while maintaining benefits.

If you're wondering why this doesn't happen now, it's because in many areas of the U.S., there's a high degree of market concentration to one or two insurance providers. And since the insurance industry is currently regulated by the several states and not the federal government, they're exempt from anti-trust.


I also do not trust the government to accuratly keep an eye on it's self and to account the numbers the same in instances where it seeks to present it's self to the public. Simply put, I really have a hard time believing that they being honest in their accounting and not pushing off costs in one area to another to hide them. This is something that has a long tradition in government spending.

While government budgeting is a ludicrous process that doesn't make sense, if you can make sense of an insurance company's numbers right now, my hats off to you. I think they're fairly opaque as it is.

[Kembal]

Thats all you had to say. ;)

<chuckle> While you got what you wanted, wouldn't the interesting question be: Is the average cost of private insurance + tax dedicated to health care in Denmark lesser or greater than the average cost of health insurance in the U.S.?

[Rocktar]

I do not think that it would be possible to make the law such that employers could not and would not find a way to foist off the cost of medical insurance onto the Federal Government. I don't care how clever you are in writing it, they will pay billions to lawyers to twist out of it. Also, I agree, the numbers from insurance companies are no more to be trusted than government numbers. All of them are in the business of keeping themselves in business and on the gravy train of sucking our wallets dry.

[Gan]

<chuckle> While you got what you wanted, wouldn't the interesting question be: Is the average cost of private insurance + tax dedicated to health care in Denmark lesser or greater than the average cost of health insurance in the U.S.?

Well, it would have been too predictable to yell SOURCE! And I did not feel like being the victim of a Google assplosion from WB when he tried to back up the actual numbers with the principal idea of what he said.

So I just stuck with getting him to admit the principal idea rather than misleading people into thinking it was a true pay/no pay option.

[Warriorbird]

Wasn't trying to mislead anybody. Pay/nopay will never happen.