Democrats on the brink of suicide

[Murf76]

You can't balance the budget with those recommendations. Last year's military expenses alone were the projected cost of the healthcare proposal over 10 years (And since the public option, if it gets in, is premium based, I don't know if that estimate is before or after collected premiums), and the total unspent recovery money is less than half. Nobody spends on military like us. The UK is second, and their budget is 1/10th of ours. Does that mean we're 10 times safer? Or just that there's 10 times more waste?

It's not a popular subject, I know. But the stuff you're talking about doing is small fry shit compared to our big problems - If we're still talking about the folly of deficit spending, that is.

I've often pondered the prospect of delegating more responsibility to individual states. There's pros and cons. There are two big cons that I can think of off the top of my head. One is that all the wealth will retreat to the states that preserve wealth, leaving the remaining states in perpetual depression. The other is that reconciling the tax dollars in our massive interstate commerce would be a chore, to say the least.

I believe there are a number of things that should be done at the federal level, either because it can be done most cost effectively at a national level (Healthcare, for example IMO), or because no single state has enough of a financial interest to do it, although it would benefit all states (The interstate highway system), or because only the federal government has the means to do it (Like the military).

It would be neat though, wouldn't it? If you don't like the way your state does business, move to another and truly be in a whole new ecosphere. I don't see it happening though. We're too massive in size and population to look at things through the eyes of the 18th century.

About two-thirds of our federal budget is spent in non-discretionary spending, most of it on social welfare. The military budget is the biggest ticket item in the discretionary budget, but the discretionary budget itself is just that final third.
How-Your-Tax-Dollars-Are-Spent: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

As you consider that first two-thirds, what stands out is that NONE of the social spending which comprises its bulk is Constitutionally mandated. There is no enumerated power for central government to spend tax monies on the poor.

This is NOT a "democracy". It's a Democratic Republic. What that means is that democracy is only legitimate as it applies to the framework of Constitutional Law. You can't just get a popular vote and do as you please. It's not legal. The only way FDR got social spending through was by threatening to pack the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS decision was coerced and is the basis for all the welfare spending that's followed.

And more is getting spent on welfare than you probably think:
http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/sr0067.cfm

Spending for National Security is a legitimate function of our Congress. Social spending is not. So, you might think "oh... here's some money we could spend on socialized medicine", but there's no enumerated power authorized by the Constitution for Congress to spend it.

More and more, we see liberals ignoring the Constitution, or treating it like some moldy old piece of paper that shouldn't apply to them. But what they forget, is that they have no authority over us without it. Without it, the United States doesn't even exist, and all you have is 'right of might' to compel us. A double-edged sword, that.

It is Law which gives us a civilized society. Without it, you do indeed have anarchy on your hands. Federalism is NOT antiquated. It's NOT "18th century". It's the Law of the Land, an agreed upon contract. And if it's not going to be obeyed, then you have no authority with which to compel the citizenry.

It's a small mind which craves uniformity and cannot tolerate real diversity. Liberals are all the time insisting that they're the diverse ones... but when push comes to shove, their actions belie their words and they strive for a cookie-cutter environment on their own arbitrary terms.

 

[The Rabbi]

One last question then I'll wait to hear back. I've been looking for a conservative to give me the TRUE conservative answer to this, most balk at the opportunity but I think you may go through with it.
Tom shows up at the hospital with a broken leg. He has no insurance, and no money, and is already deeply in debt; and he's 63. E.g., every assumption is that if you treat him, he will never, ever pay his bill. What do we do with Tom?

We treat him and pay for it with funds collected by private foundations and charities set up for just such an eventuality. And if you think that's far fetched I'll mention that many of the hospitals in existence now were set up as charity hospitals in the 19th century by "robber barons". The capability of such charities is enhanced by lowering the tax rate to where people can amass wealth to make such contributions. These charities are of course far more efficient than the gov't at delivering such services.

Hypothetically Rabbi, OK? There is no charitable organization, you treat him or he dies. Which way?

Hypothetically we let him die because we have discovered he is a pedophile and raped dozens of young boys while he was in Congress representing Massachusetts.
You want to play hypothetical or you want an answer to your leading question that doesn't involve "oh yes we need to spend gov't money on this poor man"?

 

[Cuyo]

From what I hear, if they make it an up/down vote it still may not pass as a number of Dems will vote no in protest of using reconcilliation, so that may not be viable afterall.

This is idenital to Frist calling it the 'nuclear option' when the GoP tried to force Chimp's judges to a vote.

Xeno,
Unless I have misunderstood something-- My understanding is this.

1. We have already passed different versions of the bill through both houses of congress, this we know. The house could pass the senate version tomorrow (meaning, any time), Barry could sign, done and done. (No "reconciliation" necessary)
2. Before reconciliation even comes into the picture, this must be done (or house version in senate, which won't happen).
3. Reconciliation only comes into play with regard to specifics, in this case, public option. Since the Senate bill has no public option, passing it in the house would make it law, but would not give public option. Reconciliation, in this case of debate, would only exist to re-introduce public option.

Is this what's happening as you understand it, and if so, would you hold the Dems in the same contempt if they were simply trying to get Senate version passed, as it stands, no reconciliation necessary?

I hold both parties in contempt, but that is another matter.

Queen Nan would have to have a floor vote to pass the senate bill, and she doesn't have the votes, the insider estimate is 190 Max, which is why there is talk of reconciliation since the senate bill won't pass the house, but a revamped Pelosi bill would need to get done and THEN reconcilation would be used.

It is my opinion Barry is blowing smoke with threats of reconcilation, trying to intimidate the GoP into giving him something.

I think you are incorrect - I think in order for anything to get done, the Senate bill must pass the house. No reconciliation comes into play until that happens.

FOXNews.com - Democrats Cling to Reconciliation as Option to Pass Health Care Reform

(It's just a coincidence that what I found happens to be Fox.) This is from about 2/3 down the article:
"But here's what would have to happen: The House would have to pass the Senate health care bill as it exists now -- with no changes. Then the House would simultaneously have to create a reconciliation vehicle -- a second bill -- that would make changes to send back to the Senate."

That said, I don't know why all this talk of reconciliation. If the house passes the Senate bill, the Dems could just call it a day right then and there; There would be no reconciliation. I guess my point is, this is not as backhanded and sneaky as it's being framed. After the Senate version passes the house (IF it does, not saying it will), we'll have an identical bill passed both houses of congress in traditional fashion. Reconciliation would be used only to make incremental changes.

 

[Cuyo]

We treat him and pay for it with funds collected by private foundations and charities set up for just such an eventuality. And if you think that's far fetched I'll mention that many of the hospitals in existence now were set up as charity hospitals in the 19th century by "robber barons". The capability of such charities is enhanced by lowering the tax rate to where people can amass wealth to make such contributions. These charities are of course far more efficient than the gov't at delivering such services.

Hypothetically Rabbi, OK? There is no charitable organization, you treat him or he dies. Which way?

Hypothetically we let him die because we have discovered he is a pedophile and raped dozens of young boys while he was in Congress representing Massachusetts.
You want to play hypothetical or you want an answer to your leading question that doesn't involve "oh yes we need to spend gov't money on this poor man"?

Technically I didn't even ask you the question, dude.

However, the direction I am trying to take the conversation is this. Number one, under the current system, the people who have money are already paying for Tom, either through increased premiums, a higher bill if one pays cash, or in taxes if Tom has Medicaid (At 62 I suppose he has Medicare, but I digress). Number two, unless you say "Tough shit, Tom's a dead man," you already support "Socialized" medicine in one form or another. The difference is, with a national plan the risk is spread over a massive plane, which brings the price per "Tom" down dramatically. Not to mention, if Tom had bronchitis and not a broken leg, he could see the doctor and get a $10 Z-pack, problem solved, rather than wait until he's got pneumonia and spend a week in the hospital.

 

[The Rabbi]

Except that socializing the risk will increase costs across the board.

And technically you wrote you were lookng for a conservative to give you the "true conservative answer."
That's it. I am a true conservative. So was Milton Friedman. That was Milton Friedman's answer. Sorry you didnt like it but you asked.

 

[Cuyo]

Except that socializing the risk will increase costs across the board.

That's it? That's your position?

Can you back it up, at least a little?

 

[The Rabbi]

Except that socializing the risk will increase costs across the board.

That's it? That's your position?

Can you back it up, at least a little?

This is pretty elementary. You lower the price of something, you increase the demand for it. Do you need that demonstrated? Want a link to a site that shows this? Do you think that subsidizing health care with public dollars is somehow NOT going to do this?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why isn't he focusing on jobs and economy like he said he was going to do?

Why does his main focus continue to be healthcare????!!!????

bump...

 

[boedicca]

Except that socializing the risk will increase costs across the board.

That's it? That's your position?

Can you back it up, at least a little?

This is pretty elementary. You lower the price of something, you increase the demand for it. Do you need that demonstrated? Want a link to a site that shows this? Do you think that subsidizing health care with public dollars is somehow NOT going to do this?

Silly Rabbi. You are assuming that the Left groks basic economics.