Posted on 03/17/2005 12:23:49 PM PST by Cagey
Well that's in the past and while I agree domestic spending was out of control, Bush has no acted to get it under control and the Senate seems to be balking. So the deficit is their baby now.
What? Don't you think that we should be providing the "promised" health care to all of our veterans, who provide our defense?
And how about the first responders? They sometimes are the only people standing between us and the terrorists. Don't we owe them?
And how about the hard working government worker, who could be making much more money in the private sector? Don't they deserve our attention?
And how about the poor widowed Social Security recipient who has to make it on half of her deceased husband's Social Security benefit? She has to make decisions between food and medicine. Shouldn't she be first in line?
Are you beginning to see the message?
By the way, do you have any idea of the fraud and waste that is prevalent in the Medicaid program? Any?
Bush hasn't done anything even in this term. The discretionary budget is still greater than last years, and he could always veto or negotiate down the non-discretionary part with Congress. Wake me up when that happens.
Budgets ALWAYS go up, so that's no surprise. No budget has ever been less than the previous year's budget in my lifetime, so that's not even a fair expectation. The point is the tighest budget caps ever have been imposed in Bush's spending plan and 150 federal programs have been eliminated. Is it all I want? No, but this is a step in the right direction. I think we have to be willing to see bringing down the deficit isn't going to happen all at once. If we're headed in the right direction on taming budgets, then I'm willing to accept that for now as a good beginning. We have to remember that there's really no push in this country for massive budget cuts so we have to be pragmatic.
I thought when Republicans will get a hold of everything the size and scope of the govt will be reduced. At least, that is what they have been advertising for years.
People should stop thinking that since it has NEVER actually happened. The Republicans have never reduced the size of government, not even Ronald Reagan.
How much of that is due to the fact that the American people don't actually want to reduce the size of government in the ways many conservatives think it should be reduced? How many Americans actually support getting rid of medical care for those who can't afford it?
"I thought when Republicans will get a hold of everything the size and scope of the govt will be reduced. At least, that is what they have been advertising for years."
I guess rhetoric didn't quite match the governing realities of A) Not having a filibuster proof majority in the Senate B) that the American people don't want a massive downsizing of government, esp. after 911. The unpopularity of the GOP Congress of the 90s proved that point as well as Gingrich's downfall.
Amazing that the ever so unpopular GOP did not lose the House once taking it in 1994. (/sarcasm) (/irony)
it it late and I don't have time to write much. First and foremost Medicare and most other government programs are wholly unconstitutional. Second, all the money the government spends (opps, wastes) on social programs accomplish little good and damage the very core of a moral and free society. The hard working citizens of this great Republic, if given back the dollars wasted by the parasite class of DC and the state capitols, would spend the money more wisely and help those in need more compassionately that ANY government bureaucrat. It is an absolute insult to the concept of Liberty and responsibility to believe in any way, "if the government doesn't do it, it wont get done." Last, do you realize that with most social programs over 70% of the money is absorbed by petty bureaucrats who's main purpose is to create useless rules and harass the innocent. The RINOs in Congress are betraying the very foundations of this great Republic. They should be shamed and run out of town.
Well, yeah, I know what you're saying. But they had consistenly low approval numbers and we lost seats in every election until 2002. But don't assume me an adversary. I am a big believer in what Gingrich did and the 04 GOP Revolution. It's unfortunate the country wasn't ready for that, but we tried to do the right thing.
yep...
It's the democrats and the moderates who have caused the deficit.
There outlandish spending on Medicaid is a prime example.
True.
But junkies aren't paid through Medicaid. They get their dope money each month from the Social Security Administration. The SSI program to be exact.
Which is kind of funny when you think of it (in a sick sense) - the SSA is going broke and grannies 'bingo money' is threatened, but a 23 year old junkie immediately qualifies for a guaranteed benefit to feed his 'jones'.
But Medicaid pays the bills when they get sick, as they all do.
Good point about the un-constitutional nature of this. If voters really believe in helping the sick through the power of the state, then they can vote for those programs through their state and local governments.
That is how Republicans can win this argument at the federal level. Assuming they aren't actually closet socialists.
Unfortunately unchecked democracy leads inevitably to socialism, then ultimately bankruptcy. There are many democracies on earth, and every single one is getting more socialist year by year. With the government taking a larger and larger percentage of gdp.
Ireland is the only exception I can think of off the top of my head, and now they are on a spending spree too.
Yep you're right as to that. The junkies are 'poor' so they get 'free' Medicaid.
But I was only addressing the 'free money' the junkies get, just for being ...well... junkies. Yet people who work all their life, get hurt (accident or just medical illness) in their 50's and become disabled have fight like hell with SS to get their benefits.
Every colonial state had poor laws in effect.
One of the colonial judges roles were to force towns to care for the lame and indigent. Some communities had a bad habit of taking their poor and indigent to other communities and dropping them off. So the state judicial system began forcing towns to care for their own.
This same problem surfaced between states. And that's a large part of how it became federalized.
You may be right that consitutional power is not specified for poor laws at the federal level. But if it wasn't I'd vote for an amendment in a heartbeat.
If you are right that 70% of the money is absorbed by petty bureacrats, then we need to fix the program and make it more efficient. However, fixing the program CANNOT include eliminating governmental support for the poor.
Scripture links a kings tenure to how he treats the poor. If "we the people" fail to perform our inate governmental duty to the poor, I believe God will remove us from governing ourselves.
We should meet all of the commitments that we have made as well as the governmental duties that God outlined. And there is no reason that we can't.
Fraud and waste in government problems CAN NOT be used as an excuse to walk away from governmental responsibilities.
There has been fraud in the military, are you in favor of eliminating the military? Of course not. But because caring for the indigent costs you money, and you don't understand the benefit and want to shirk your responsibility, you just want to walk away from the problem instead of work towards a more efficient and responsible government.
You obviously missed my point. Every person in this country can come up with what they feel the government can and should do. Everyone has his/her own priorities.
I'll stick with Alan Greenspan's comment to the Congress the other day - paraphrased: "There is no way in hell that the government (that means the taxpayers) can meet all of the committments that it has made. No way."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.