No lack of federal

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by KinkGuy, Feb 8, 2005.

  1. KinkGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southwest US
    So, the shrub's new "budget" arrived today. It's very clear, we can keep on spending hundreds of billions of dollars without a care in the world.

    All you have to do?

    Slash, reduce or eliminate funding to virtually every social program in place in this country.

    If you are too stoopid to be rich, you don't deserve a single solitary dime from the U.S. Government.

    Today's budget is interesting in that it does not contain two of the biggest drains on the treasury. The war in Iraq (at a billion dollars every 30 or so hours) nor the privatization of Social Security.

    How can fighting a war, not be a budget item?

    I hope all of the "red state" farmers are happy now, too. Say farewell to the last of the family farms. Hey, they voted for 'em.
     
  2. Pecker

    Pecker Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    83,922
    Likes Received:
    34
    Um... deserve money from the government?
     
  3. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    gwinea2000:

    My EXACT reaction. :wacko:
     
  4. MisterMark

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,090
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, CA

    My EXACT reaction. :wacko:
    [post=281133]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]

    I'll come to his defense. I'm sure he was speaking very casually and didn't necessarily mean "deserve". Replace "you don't deserve" with "you are ineligible to receive". I think that's the point he was really making.
     
  5. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    I hate welfare queens too. Especially ones like Lockheed-Martin, Samsung, and Diebold.
     
  6. jay_too

    jay_too New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CA
    Is deserve the word? In some cases I think it is. I think every child deserves health care, housing, and proper nutrition. Unless you have social support structures in place [and these take federal dollars], the poor will be left out.

    I understand that for a few decades after WW II, California higher education was essentially free to all citizens. Today students are sweating whether the Bush budget will reduce the availability of student loans and wonder whether they can graduate or should they start looking for a responsible position flipping burgers. I think anyone willing to graduate with $150,000 in student loans deserves help from the government and respect of his countrymen.

    End of rant!

    jay
     
  7. BobLeeSwagger

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    For a preview of this year's budget, see last year's. That budget also attempted to axe a bunch of small social programs and very few were cut. Legislators don't like to cut spending when it affects their districts. They won't this year either. So discretionary spending will be higher than this latest Bush fantasy claims, even without war spending and the sham Social Security proposals.

    Both sides play this game every year. The final budget often bears little resemblance to what the president first proposed.
     
  8. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Well, I think we deserve to get back from Social Security at least what we put into it.

    SG
     
  9. jay_too

    jay_too New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CA
    I have been unable to find how much has been budgeted for the unworkable missile defense system and the manned mission to Mars. Talk about flushing money down the toilet [Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northop Grumman, whoever]. It is really nice to have technically incompetent decision makers.

    Oh and of course, they axed the Hubble Telescope in this budget. This has been a program that has given quite a bang for the bucks in advancing our understanding of the universe and of basic science. The Hubble is worth saving if only for the beautiful pictures.

    jay
     
  10. KinkGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southwest US
    substitute "deserve"
    Do we, as a society, "deserve" certain services and protections from our government?

    Don't we "deserve"....

    an education. billions being cut. no child left behind not being funded, even to gw's original level.

    medical care for veterans returning from war. prescription coverage being slashed and they will be required to pay for portions of their care themselves

    the V.A., hit very hard, hospitals closing, Dr's and clinics going away.

    benefits for the National Guard; pay and medical coverage being cut.

    heating credits to poverty level elderly; gone

    police departments; decimated. no fed support for cops, training or equipment.
    fire department's; not receiving money for same.

    federal guaranteed student loan program; drastically cut

    aid to farmers; all but gone
    D.E.A.; cuts
    Immigration control and enforcement; cuts
    F.A.A.; cuts
    School lunch program; cuts
    Library funding; cuts
    N.T.S.B; cuts
    All aid to child welfare; programs gutted
    All aid to A.I.D.S. / H.I.V. programs; cuts
    All mental health programs; cuts
    Medicaid; huge cuts
    Medicare; huge cuts

    These are just a few. The social programs we are getting ready to destroy, some of which have been in place for many decades and WERE successful just don't seem to benefit the rich.

    The United States used to be a country, a society that grew, prospered and developed because we worked hard to make the poorest among us wealthier, while making the wealthy richer in the process. History and statistics have shown that it is far less expensive to provide preventative measures in health care, provide education and create opportunity, than it is to pay the tab after hundreds of thousands more wind up on the streets.

    And don't anyone dare accuse me of being a "bleeding heart liberal." I am pushing the 40% (overall) tax bracket and this country has given me the opportunity to be reasonably successful, happy and previously secure. I am honor bound and happy to "pay the freight" and in my very small way, help keep this society moving forward. The wealthy owe a debt to mankind.

    I've got mine, so fuck you seems to be the attitude.

    No, I stand by my original statement. "Deserve", in many if not most, of the cases I cited, IS the right word. What is so fucking wrong with a society caring for it's citizens?

    Have any of you even read ANY of what this budget does and DOESN'T fund?

    I apologize for how poorly written this tirade is, but it is late and I am PISSED and frightened.
     
  11. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hell, just the inheritance tax would've saved social security. The current problem is basically inertia. When conservatives first wanted to reduce the size of the government in the 70s, it was to deal with budget issues. By the Reagan era, reducing the size of the government was the goal, even if it meant ruining the treasury in the process. Of course, only reducing certain structures; I've argued before that such concentration of wealth could be impossible without the government, and they don't want to destroy the government structures which favor that.

    What's bad is, Kerry could've beaten him if he hadn't tried to be so civilized. If he'd gone out there and asked Bush about anything Bush had done, and connected the Spam Boat and similar negative ads with Rove, even all the Diebold scams in the country, the Krazy Kloset Kweers obsessed with gay marriage, and all the rest of the Bush tricks would've failed.
     
  12. D_Martin van Burden

    D_Martin van Burden Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    6
    It's simple.
     
  13. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    60
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    Social security. My Mom has already drawn a lot more from Social Security then she put in. I hope she draws a whole lot more. Social security is oly projected to run out of money in 2052. A lot can happen between now and then.

    My father died not drawing much social security so the government made money on him. Mom's social security paid better then his so she is on her own. So two parents. One the government made money on and one the government has paid out a lot more then she paid in. She has lived a long time. I hope the government pays out a whole lot more. Most of us will get more in benefits then we pay in. Yeam, it a is a wonderful drain on our government. Our senior citizens have a chance at living a life not in poverty. Which one of us doesn't want to live that long. I know I do. I don't want to live to be 105, but I haven't decided what year i want to go. But it want ever the the year that I am lving at the moment that is for sure.

    Now, starting privitation of Social Security now will bankrupt it right now. Or we will have to cut benefits by 30 % right now. Back in the 60's the Republicans were talking about wanting to repeal Social Security. The Repubicans opposd it int he 30's and oppose it now. They don't want to tell you why. They are the employers and they don't want to pay that 7 1/2 % on each employee. They don't give a rat's ass that their employees will be destetude when they have to reitre due to healh.

    That is what all this is about. A charade to cover the real intentions the desolution of social security. Social Security makes it possible for all Americans to have a retirement income when they grow old. We need to keep it. I bet just a 1/4 % increase in Social Security deductions would push that year way on out there to 2070 or beyond. Social Security is not broke. We just need to tweak it a little and I mean just a little.


    We could become like Mexico. I guess that is the goal. The tenth richest nation in the world. And most of their people live in gross poverty. All the money is tied up at the top in the hands of a favored few. That appears to be the objective of this bush administration. It is all about power. Shame. Horrors.
     
  14. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    That's the goal, Freddie. It's bad because they talk about earning your money. Strange how they don't favor a 100% inheritance tax then. (Of course, it's possible to "earn" your inheritance too: Do you have any idea how hard it is to kill your parents and make it look like an accident?)
     
  15. KinkGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southwest US
    Here's how Social Security "works"................
    Every year since it started, the people currently working are paying for the ones currently retired. S.S. has ALWAYS run a huge annual surplus, well into the trillions of dollars. So, each year whatever funds are left over when all retirees are paid, is going into the general budget, NOT the S.S. trust fund where it is supposed to be. The government has spent so many trillions of S.S's money, that there is no possible way to ever repay the funds. God help me for saying this, but had the Republican Congress left the money where it was being protected by law, laws enacted and pushed through against HUGE opposition by, gulp, Ronald Reagan, we would have NO problem. The honorable gw and company, has ALREADY SPENT two trillion plus of the agency's money and know and are proving, that Social Security really is going to be bankrupt. Carpet baggers after the Civil War were gentlemen by comparison. And Freddie is absolutely right that this is all being driven by big business who wants to do away with the program and keep another 7.5% of their payroll.
     
  16. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    It's ideology, KinkGuy. It's kinda funny; Adam Smith never said capitalism was the ideal, just the system of the time. (In fact, Smith came up with several possible remedies for the concentration of wealth, but that's one section of The Wealth of Nations no tried-and-true neocon will ever read.)
     
  17. KinkGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southwest US
    I'm pretty sure it's on the white house list of books banned from the public libraries.
     
  18. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    Goldstein's book?
     
  19. KinkGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southwest US
    Smith, "The Wealth of Nations"
     
  20. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    No, it's a reference to 1984. Emmanuel Goldstein (named after real-life anarchist Emma Goldman) was an early revolutionary who later disagreed with the revolution and as a result never existed.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted