Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?  
User currently offline1MillionFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2371 times:

From Yahoo/AP

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060207/ap_on_go_pr_wh/budget_education

Apparently the goal is to dumb down the populace and keep feeding the budget for building oil companies up.

[Edited 2006-02-07 03:54:57]

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2350 times:

Actually, Bush is cutting funding to oil companies in the budget. Combined with his new initiatives towards developing alternative sources of energy... you think it might be time to give the tired oil company talking points a rest for a while?

There is a lot that stinks in the budget, how about harping on something that is actually there?


User currently offlineN5176Y From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2343 times:

Why do we even have a federal department of education? Schools are run by municpalities and, rarely, by states.

User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2343 times:

How can we support funding two wars?
How can we support permanent tax cuts?
How can we support major cuts in education?
How can we rebuild New Orleans with all this?
How can we support a budget that is nearly half a trillion in the red?



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2305 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3):
How can we support funding two wars?

It's one war in two different locations and it's a little late to back out now.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3):
How can we support permanent tax cuts?

How can we not?

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3):
How can we support major cuts in education?

How about if we just let the States handle the schools? Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government is supposed to have anything to do with them anyway?

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3):
How can we rebuild New Orleans with all this?

That's an easy one. Just give them what they want. A fair share of the energy profits that their state provides. I'm all for that.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3):
How can we support a budget that is nearly half a trillion in the red?

We can't, but until you're ready to start talking about cutting entitlement spending all else is just pussy footing around. Entitlement spending is the 800 pound gorilla in the federal budget. All else pales besides that.


User currently offlineCptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2282 times:

Well, someone a while back called me facitiously an "economist" (and, of course, I'm not), but would I be blind by being led by the blind in answering afore-asked questions of "how can we afford that?" by responding "we have in the past, and we can again."

And, I don't mind going back to the 6+ trillion "great society" boondoggle, the expense of the poorly executed Viet Nam adventure, the out-spending of the Soviet Union to "win" the cold war and a host of other, sometimes beneficial - sometimes best forgotten, spending campaigns. I'm not at all supportive of the zillions of bucks spilled on pork, let alone questionable international poker being played by the US government, but to blanket write-off the budget as a country-sinker is a bit premature IMO.

That said, the link provided specifically states that the $3.7B cut is an actual cut from this year's spending in Ed (although I'm still somewhat suspiscious of the semantics - is it a real cut in $ amount or a cut in formerly projected $ amount?). If it is a real OR imaginary cut, some reasons quoted are because certain programs are "deemed uneccessary or inefficient", which, as I take it from most posters in this A.net would be a damn good thing. Obviously, cutting inefficiency out of the equations of all spending programs would probably balance the budget in...what? 72 hours rather than years?

Anyway, I think it's written somewhere that the government guarantees a "right" to an education, but I don't think it's written anywhere that the government is "responsible" for insuring an education. If individual states want to locally enact "free" education, fine. That's not the Fed's responsibility.

If I'm wrong, I'll learnedly (and happily) accept updated information. Regards....jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineS12PPL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2268 times:

Easy....

Republicans helped put that moron into office...And now they have to die with that choice.

This guy never will get it. We're going to feel his budget decisions for years to come....


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2248 times:

This is a summary from the federal budget site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/

Since listing tables here is a royal pain in the ass, I will simply list the functions and subfunctions and whether their spending levels are increased or decreased significantly, along with any comments.

   means a big increase in spending.    means a decrease.    means stable spending, in line with inflation.

Remember that this is still very top-line. But it is much better than depending on the media to tell you their interpretations.

050 National defense:
051 Department of Defense—Military:
Military Personnel ..............................................   
Operation and Maintenance ..............................   
Procurement ....  
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ........   
Military Construction ..........................................   
Family Housing ..................................................  
Anticipated funding for Global War on Terror ..   ($55 billion!) 
Other ...............    ($3.5 billion)
051 Subtotal, Department of Defense—Military ...  
053 Atomic energy defense activities ...................   
054 Defense-related activities ...............................   
Total, National defense ..........................................   

150 International affairs:
151 International development and humanitarian assistance ...   
152 International security assistance ....................   
153 Conduct of foreign affairs ...............................   
154 Foreign information and exchange activities .   
Total, International affairs ......................................   

250 General science, space and technology:
251 General science and basic research .............   
252 Space flight, research, and supporting activities ...   
Total, General science, space and technology ....   

270 Energy:
271 Energy supply .................................................   
272 Energy conservation .......................................   
274 Emergency energy preparedness ..................   
276 Energy information, policy, and regulation ....   
Total, Energy .......   

300 Natural resources and environment:
301 Water resources .............................................   
302 Conservation and land management .............   
303 Recreational resources ...................................   
304 Pollution control and abatement ....................   
306 Other natural resources ..................................   
Total, Natural resources and environment ............   

350 Agriculture:
351 Farm income stabilization ...............................   
352 Agricultural research and services .................   
Total, Agriculture ....................................................   

370 Commerce and housing credit:
371 Mortgage credit ...............................................   
372 Postal Service .................................................   
373 Deposit insurance ...........................................   
376 Other advancement of commerce .................   
Total, Commerce and housing credit ....................   

400 Transportation:
401 Ground transportation ...........................................   
402 Air transportation ...........................................   
403 Water transportation .............................................   
407 Other transportation ..............................................   
Total, Transportation ........................................   

450 Community and regional development:
451 Community development ......................................   
452 Area and regional development ...........................   
453 Disaster relief and insurance ...............................    (decline due to Katrina Spending in FY 2006)
Total, Community and regional development .............   

500 Education, training, employment, and social services:
501 Elementary, secondary, and vocational education .............   
502 Higher education .......................................   (Huge drop)
503 Research and general education aids .................   
504 Training and employment .....................................   
505 Other labor services .............................................   
506 Social services ..........................................   
Total, Educ., training, employ., and social services ...   

550 Health:
551 Health care services .............................................   
552 Health research and training ................................   
554 Consumer and occupational health and safety ...   
Total, Health .....................................................   

570 Medicare:
571 Medicare ...................................................        ($50 billion increase!!!)

600 Income security:
601 General retirement and disability insurance (excluding social security) .........   
602 Federal employee retirement and disability .........   
603 Unemployment compensation ..............................   
604 Housing assistance ...................................   
605 Food and nutrition assistance ..............................   
609 Other income security ..........................................   
Total, Income security ......................................   

650 Social security:
651 Social security ...........................................   

700 Veterans benefits and services:
701 Income security for veterans ................................   
702 Veterans education, training, and rehabilitation ..   
703 Hospital and medical care for veterans ...............   
704 Veterans housing ......................................   
705 Other veterans benefits and services ..................   
Total, Veterans benefits and services .........................   


750 Administration of justice:
751 Federal law enforcement activities ................   
752 Federal litigative and judicial activities ..........   
753 Federal correctional activities .........................   
754 Criminal justice assistance .............................   
Total, Administration of justice ..............................   

800 General government:
801 Legislative functions .......................................    Congress
802 Executive direction and management ............    White House?
803 Central fiscal operations .................................   
804 General property and records management .   
805 Central personnel management .....................   
806 General purpose fiscal assistance .................   
808 Other general government .............................   
Total, General government ....................................   

Total, Net interest ..................................................   

Total federal outlay budget now accounts for 20.1% of GDP, down from 20.8% in FY 2006  thumbsup . We need to work to get this down further to 18%.

[Edited 2006-02-07 10:29:57]

User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 850 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2233 times:

Where´s pretzels when you need them.

Micke//SE  Wink



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2226 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 7):
That's such a stupid question. Do you realize how stupid it sounds? Now if you were asking "How can we support permanent tax cuts with our current deficit"

Actually, your question is equally stupid, don't you see how much it is ?
Tax cuts means nothing if you don't know the level of tax.

A good way to say it would be "How can we support permanent tax cuts with the current deficit, considering how low the taxes already are and the needs of the poor population which is already in very bad shape".

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 7):
But your question reveals you as a far-left socialist.

Your sentence reveals also your political views, very far in the other side.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2219 times:

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 11):
Actually, your question is equally stupid, don't you see how much it is ?
Tax cuts means nothing if you don't know the level of tax.

I know the level of tax (17.5% of GDP last year). If you don't, I would assume that you would not participate in this thread.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 11):
A good way to say it would be "How can we support permanent tax cuts with the current deficit, considering how low the taxes already are and the needs of the poor population which is already in very bad shape".

The tax rate is in line with the tax rate over the past 50+ years. So far, the additional programs over the past 50 years have been paid for by decreasing the military budget and passing the funds to social programs. But now that military spending is now less than 20% of the budget (it was over 60% 50 years ago), there is just no more blood that you can squeeze out of that chicken.

Non-discretionary entitlement spending is the biggest problem in the budget, and it MUST be reduced. It is the entitlement spending that must be corrected to balance the budget, not taxes. Taxes must not exceed 18%, in my opinion.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2203 times:

What I find interesting is how the press says "Bush boosts defence, hits domestic programs".

What they do is be selective on what they count in the defence budget, and play around with the numbers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060206/...u=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

The true numbers are, for defence spending (in millions):

2006... $535,943 ... 19.8% of outlays ... 4.1% of GDP
2007... $527,428 ... 19.0% of outlays ... 3.8% of GDP

And those numbers include War on Terror spending.

So defence spending is down across the board, in every valid way you can count it (percent of outlays, absolute numbers, and % of GDP)

So where is all the spin coming from? Could it be that the press is biased? Nahhh.  Yeah sure


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6785 posts, RR: 34
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2165 times:

I've always taken the approach that NO FEDERAL BUDGET is defensible whatsoever.

The entire thing is a bloated sow, a trainwreck of wasted taxpayer funds, and laden with pork.

I personally don't care if the rate of increases is beloe economic growth--the Federal budget shouldn't be tied to economic growth in a volumetrically linear manner anyhow--I denounce the construct.

No discipline whatsoever by either party--one more major nugget that supports my third party decision. Fuck em all!


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2156 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 13):
I've always taken the approach that NO FEDERAL BUDGET is defensible whatsoever.

You wouldn't happen to live in the mountains of Montana, would you?  Silly


User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2143 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 13):
I've always taken the approach that NO FEDERAL BUDGET is defensible whatsoever.

Defense of the nation is defensible. Budgets for State, Treasury, and Justice are defensible. There are several others but your right, if we rand the country according to the Constitution the Federal Government would be but a shadow of itself.


User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2469 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2110 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 4):
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3):
How can we support funding two wars?

It's one war in two different locations and it's a little late to back out now.

No, it's NOT one war. That's the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity, etc. spin. The war in Afghanistan is against Al Queda and the Taliban remnants. The one in Iraq was undertaken specifically to topple Saddam Hussein from power. There was NO proven link between Al Queda and Saddam. What Al Queda is in Iraq now came as a response to the U.S. invasion, not the other way around. Stop trying to insult our intelligence by trying to connect dots that aren't there. I agree it's too late to back out of war with Al Queda but at some point, Iraq's own forces will have to take over quelling the continued unrest there, if they can. The coalition will give them support for a time but they'll have to step up to the plate, at some point; it's not up to the U.S. & allies to indefinitely police Iraq. To continue to shrug your shoulders at what was an ill-advised, undermanned military effort and blindly support Bush's absurd contention Iraq is merely an extension of the conflict with Al Queda renders you as merely another Bush yes-man. However you want to justify the Iraq campaign, calling it the same war as in Afghanistan is laughable. The only common thread at this point is that in both wars, we're now fighting Muslim extremists. The difference is, that was the goal of the Afghan war but has become a largely unexpected byproduct of the Iraq conflict, in which it was initially assumed bringing order would be relatively swift after Hussein was removed. Being a "ditto-head" may keep you in good graces with Rush fans but not with those of us able to think for ourselves. Next spin, please.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2094 times:

Quoting N5176Y (Reply 2):
Why do we even have a federal department of education? Schools are run by municpalities and, rarely, by states.

The Federal and State governments have to set standards and curricula for the schools, though. Someone has to set policy. Otherwise you wind up with schools teaching candy-ass crap like Intelligent Design. Oh, wait.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2092 times:

Just read an article in CNN about the budget, and even a lot of Republicans aren't happy with it.

It's obvious, that Mr. Bush's main concern in this budget is to keep his first-term handout tax cut to the wealthiest Americans, at the expense, as usual with a GOP President, of the poor, the middle class and children.

What becomes a bigger and bigger joke is his pathetic Charade of this "No Child Left Behind" crapola. It should be renamed either "Most of the Children Left Behind", or "No Rich Child Left Behind", because that's the truth of it.

The tax cut is a top priority for one reason-it's the GOP's payoff for waiting 60 years to gain control of the government. It's giving people who already can't spend all their money, even more they can't spend, while the poor and middle class, what's left of the latter, gets squeezed more and more, and their tax cut doesn't even go noticed in their daily financial lives.

It makes no sense to push so hard for a permanent tax break for the wealthy, while at the same time proposing a budget which will have a record in deficit spending-and at the same time you're fighting a war. But it isn't proposed on what's sensible, but on paying off your patrons.

This one is probably DOA, at least many parts of it. And Bush, being the Lame Duck now, will see a vastly different budget from the one he's proposed.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2073 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17):
It's obvious, that Mr. Bush's main concern in this budget is to keep his first-term handout tax cut to the wealthiest Americans, at the expense, as usual with a GOP President, of the poor, the middle class and children.

Here we go again.

The rich pay more than their fair share of taxes. Here is how the income taxes are split among the population, after the tax cut.

Taxable revenue (single or joint)..............Percent of returns...............Percent of total tax collected.

$0 to $11,000.............. 21.9%............... 0.2%
$11,001 to $22,000.............. 19.4%............... 1.5%
$22,001 to $50,000.............. 29.8%............... 11.1%
$50,001 to $75,000.............. 13.4%............... 12.9%
$75,001 to $100,000.............. 7.1%............... 11.8%
$100,000 to $200,000.............. 6.5%............... 22.0%
More than $200,000.............. 1.9%............... 40.5%
.......................................100.0%............... 100.0%

So 75% of the taxes are paid by the richest 15% of the people. The poorest 40% only pay less than 2% of the tax. Are you saying that that is not enough?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17):
What becomes a bigger and bigger joke is his pathetic Charade of this "No Child Left Behind" crapola. It should be renamed either "Most of the Children Left Behind", or "No Rich Child Left Behind", because that's the truth of it.

The solution is vouchers, which he has tried to push. But he has been thwarted by people from both sides, but especially by the unions and those who are in their pockets, as well as all the politicians who stand to benefit from ensuring the continuation of an undereducated poverty class.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17):
The tax cut is a top priority for one reason-it's the GOP's payoff for waiting 60 years to gain control of the government.

As it should be. What are the budget items that are out of control today? Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlements - babies of the democrats from the New Deal to the Great Society. They are out of control because certain things were promised back in a day with certain demographics, and now those demographics simply don't work.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 18):

Goody, Charles. The wealthies 1% of the people in this nation make like 70% of the income in this nation. I imagine they can do without a little more money they can't spend so a child can get fucking health care, don't you?


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2027 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3):
How can we rebuild New Orleans with all this?

We can't, and we shouldn't, at least to the extent it was before Katrina.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 4):
We can't, but until you're ready to start talking about cutting entitlement spending all else is just pussy footing around. Entitlement spending is the 800 pound gorilla in the federal budget. All else pales besides that.

 checkmark  Congress and entitlement spending go together like an addict and his heroin.

Quoting Slider (Reply 12):
I've always taken the approach that NO FEDERAL BUDGET is defensible whatsoever.

The entire thing is a bloated sow, a trainwreck of wasted taxpayer funds, and laden with pork.

I personally don't care if the rate of increases is beloe economic growth--the Federal budget shouldn't be tied to economic growth in a volumetrically linear manner anyhow--I denounce the construct.

No discipline whatsoever by either party--one more major nugget that supports my third party decision

 checkmark 

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17):
This one is probably DOA, at least many parts of it. And Bush, being the Lame Duck now, will see a vastly different budget from the one he's proposed.

I agree. But it's replacement will be chock full of pork for our wonderful representatives to go home and crow about.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 19):
Goody, Charles. The wealthies 1% of the people in this nation make like 70% of the income in this nation. I imagine they can do without a little more money they can't spend so a child can get fucking health care, don't you?

I can anticipate much of the bile that will flow once I hit send on this one, but here goes. When and why did it become the responsibility of the federal government to provide cradle to grave health care? Especially when we are sinking further and further into debt?

There are four things humans need to survive. Food, water, shelter, and clothing. Like it or not, health care is not an essential element of life. Does it improve our quality of life? Of course. Do we need the government to take on certain tasks relating to public health? Of course. Government should and has improved public health in a variety of ways - immunizations, enforcing food and drug purity, providing basic sanitation, etc. But paying for every doctor visit? Why???

We provide a basic social safety net for the essentials of life. People who are truly needy are provided food, shelter and clothing - as they should. People who are truly needy also ought to have access to a basic level of medical care - and they get it through Medicaid (although that program needs an overhaul to be sure.) But if you are a wage earner, paying for medical care ought to be the responsibility of the individual.

Saying that the rich need to pay more taxes so that we can provide for cradle to grave national health care - equal medical care for all - is just another way to transfer wealth from one part of society to another.

Watch the Justice part of the budget over the next few months. OMB wants to cut 1.5 billion in grant programs. I'll bet you that they are restored, despite the fact that they are nothing more than programs designed to keep our representatives in office. Ooops, I just gave away the secret as to why they will be restored!

I'll support an expansion of medical care across the board once we stop all the BS corporate and governmental subsidies that are bleeding the taxpayers dry. Until then, I'll glady keep paying for my own medical care.


User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2747 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2023 times:

[quote=Cfalk,reply=11]The true numbers are, for defence spending (in millions):

2006... $535,943 ... 19.8% of outlays ... 4.1% of GDP
2007... $527,428 ... 19.0% of outlays ... 3.8% of GDP

And those numbers include War on Terror spending.

So defence spending is down across the board, in every valid way you can count it (percent of outlays, absolute numbers, and % of GDP)


One question about your budget numbers. Does the 2007 figure include any supplementals? The President's budget didn't. To get a better comparison, add 55 billion to 2007. Suddenly 2007 is an increase of around 46 billion from 2006.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2006 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 19):
Goody, Charles. The wealthies 1% of the people in this nation make like 70% of the income in this nation. I imagine they can do without a little more money they can't spend so a child can get fucking health care, don't you?

That is an exaggeration. The richest 1.9% make 26.7% of the income, and pay over 40% of the tax.

Shouldn't charity be voluntary? Or do you have to hold a gun to everyone's head?

I have a proposal. People need to take responsibility for their own health care. That is the American way. But since children had no say as to their birth or income, how about providing health coverage for children up to age 18. Everyone else has to pay their own way.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 21):
One question about your budget numbers. Does the 2007 figure include any supplementals? The President's budget didn't. To get a better comparison, add 55 billion to 2007.

Yes, there is a line of $55 billion "Anticipated War Funding" included.


User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1997 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20):
When and why did it become the responsibility of the federal government to provide cradle to grave health care? Especially when we are sinking further and further into debt?

Pretty simple. When someone decided Iraq was more important than the country he was elected president of.

It's the least he can do. I don't want to hear about sacrifice. I'm tired of sacrificing for Iraq. I don't want my children to as well.

B


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1984 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 22):
I have a proposal. People need to take responsibility for their own health care. That is the American way. But since children had no say as to their birth or income, how about providing health coverage for children up to age 18. Everyone else has to pay their own way.

While I agree with the first two sentences, I can't agree with the latter two.

Military pay is in three parts - base pay, basic allowance for quarters, and subsistence. The latter changes very little over your career, and base pay changes as you are promoted. Before the 1970's quarters allowance was a multiple category item. Based on your rank, if you had no dependents, you get a set amount. Get married? the BAQ goes up. And in those days, the BAQ went up every time you had an additional kid. IOW, we were paying people to have more children. Fortunately, saner heads prevailed, and now there are only two categories of BAQ - with and without dependents.

Quoting NonRevKing (Reply 23):
It's the least he can do. I don't want to hear about sacrifice. I'm tired of sacrificing for Iraq. I don't want my children to as well.

I don't ask you to pay for my car, my mortgage, or my grocery bill. Why should you be asking me to pay for your children's health care?


25 Slider : True enough. I typically don't have any problem with military defense budgets from a principle standpoint, but again, politics, bureaucracy and lack
26 Falcon84 : Let me turn that around, on what I said: when and why did it become the responsibility of the federal government to provide huge tax breaks for peopl
27 Texdravid : Bush's budget is another example of Republicans losing their way. We used to be the party of anti-spending. Now look at the entitlement programs, the
28 L-188 : Makes you wish for the 1980's when they wanted to get rid of the Federal Department of Education completely. Should be a state standard, not a federa
29 Falcon84 : Actually, the GOP is now the "Tax cut and spend" party.
30 Cfalk : I'm not going to get into a macroeconomic debate with you, but it is my belief (and this has been supprted by a hundred years of collective economic
31 L-188 : It is amazing how many people think Bill keeps his cash in a Mason jar under the mattress in the backyard. People with money want to grow it, so they
32 Post contains images Gilligan : I never said there was but the fact remains it is still a part of the war on terror no matter what your limited view would like to imagine. I got out
33 Post contains images Halls120 : I'm all for the government providing vaccinations to all children free of charge. And when the truly indigent need medical care, they should get it.
34 NonRevKing : Why should the gov't be asking me and my future generations to pay for the Iraq war? I'll take the health care, thank you. B
35 Halls120 : I'm not asking you to pay for the Iraq war, but you want me to pay for your health care? I'll keep my money, thanks. You can pay for your own health
36 NonRevKing : Unless you're name is Gov't, I wasn't asking you. But you are and will be paying for Iraq for quite some time. Glad you like that, I don't. We all wi
37 Falcon84 : In other words, give the rich more than they can spend, OR INVEST (don't give me that line of crap that Gates will invest it all. Thats' crap, and yo
38 Texdravid : The utter scapegoating of wealthy individuals by some liberals is just as appalling. It's just beyond comprehension. Get a clue, Falcon. Not everyone
39 Cfalk : Falcon, I enjoy debating with you. You are one of the better informed and articulate people on this board. But economics seems to be your achilles he
40 Gilligan : Because provide for the common defense is in the Constituition, pay for your health care is not. Don't like the way the current government spends you
41 Halls120 : I don't want a UK or Canadian-style national health plan - or an updated version of Hillarycare. I've seen the benefits and shortcomings of other nat
42 Post contains images Falcon84 : I'm not scapegoating the weathly individuals at all, Tex. I'm scapegoating those who are giving them these huge tax breaks, while cutting educational
43 Texdravid : I must disagree with all your points, Falcon. This country does plenty and then some for the disadvantaged. There is no crisis in lack of compassion,
44 Gilligan : I'd be willing to bet that for every dollar spent in Iraq there are probably 10 spent elsewhere in the federal budget that have nothing to do with wh
45 RwSEA : Not true - ask a macro-economist what will jump-start the economy. #1 they will always tell you is increasing government spending. Tax cuts are a dis
46 Cfalk : Increasing government spending, yes, but without raising the taxes to go with it. In other words, deficit spending stimulates the economy, not just g
47 Gilligan : And just how was that "stable" government able to remain in power? If that was true then it would also be true that "wealth" is a cycle. BTW, you did
48 Halls120 : Poverty is a cycle because we've made it far too easy to remain on the government dole. When welfare rules were changed by Clinton (one of the best t
49 Post contains links B2707SST : Actually, this is almost completely incorrect. The greatest American macroeconomist in American history, with the probable exception of Milton Friedm
50 Falcon84 : Read what I said, and don't infer, my friend. Someone above said what the rich don't spend, they invest, and I don't buy that. The very wealthy inves
51 Falcon84 : You want to REALLY energize the economy? Don't give these huge breaks to the wealthy. There was a definite spike in spending when those peons like me
52 Post contains images Halls120 :
53 Post contains images Halls120 :
54 RwSEA : So how is someone without education supposed to get a reasonable income. The average welfare recipient or panhandler on the street could easily go ou
55 Post contains images Halls120 : My grandmother raised 7 children all on her own. Without government assistance. Every one of her children graduated from high school, got jobs, bough
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Can Anyone Identify This Dance Song? posted Sat Aug 20 2005 01:05:34 by Sabena332
How Can They Do This? posted Thu Sep 30 2004 22:23:50 by Whitehatter
Can Anyone Identify This Song? posted Fri Dec 27 2002 16:24:16 by Matt D
Can Anyone Shed Some Light On This Vid? posted Sat Sep 30 2006 22:24:44 by AA61Hvy
How Can I Read This Website In English? posted Fri Jul 21 2006 20:50:51 by Alberchico
So How Can We Blame Rita On Bush? posted Wed Sep 21 2005 06:14:36 by CaptOveur
How Can Bush Compare To Regan? posted Mon Jun 7 2004 06:08:17 by Flyboy36y
Does Anyone Support Bush? posted Tue Mar 18 2003 02:50:34 by Tbird
How Can This Be? Some Gays Want Aids? posted Sat Jan 25 2003 01:56:30 by MD-90
Can Anyone Help Me Figure Out This Song? posted Sat Nov 25 2000 01:59:30 by Adam84