Iraq - $5,000 per Second

[Warner]

As far as your cherry picked information, you don't take the whole picture into effect. You fail to acknowledge the spending from other departments as well as at the state level when it comes to welfare. Looking through a limited lens, yes it may not seem there is a problem with social spending. But there is a total picture which I have laid out in my previous post.

I limited the scope of the welfare issue to Federal spending because your arguments were w.r.t. the USA on the National level. To be sure there are some states that undertake rather significant welfare burdens - there are also quite a few that do not. But your arguments were made against the ~$2.8 trillion Federal budget so that was where I focused my argument.

If we are to expand the discussion to include state, county, and city spending, then of course we must also include state revenue in the total budget figure. If we do this, we probably about double the total budget (state income taxes are typcially about 30-40% of the Fed. level, and then there is sales taxes, property taxes, and use taxes to add in as well).

Your argument was about Federal welfare, and my point was simply that when all is said and done, our Federal government has a rather minimal role in welfare. I don't have time at the moment to work on a states analysis as it will take a bit more time than a Federal analysis, but I'll try to get to it next time I have some dead time available.

No, Social Security funds are used for general programs. If you doubt that fact then where has the 1.8 trillion dollars went?

I'm not questioning that the SS trust fund has been raided. But how does this support your argument? Basically what you are saying is that because the generally conservative run government has been unable to keep its hands off of this fund, choosing to use it to supplement other types of programs, that this is an argument against SS? This does not make sense.

Also you can make claims of bailouts and the such but what would be the tax revenue consquences of letting these corporations going belly up? Corporations in America are the second highest taxed in the world(links if needed). What would the consquences of just simply letting them go bankrupt?

In the long run it would have made the economy stronger and healthier. Why should the average tax payer have to bail out the very rich when they make bad high-risk investments? By doing so, it simply sustains the wealth of those individuals and encourages such bad investing practices in the future.

I do not understand how you do not see the hypocrisy of supporting such welfare for the rich when you are so dead set against welfare for the poor.

As far as your care for the elderly, that's a slippery slope your on. Who decides when an elderly person no longer has a chance to have a meaningful life, the government? I don't think you would even contend that the government should decide when someone should die or live. Neither should medical personel, individual families should decide.

Not at all. I am not saying the government should decide that someone should die, simply that they should decide when it is unreasonable for the Medicare tax payer to pay for it. Individual families should decide - and they should pay for their decision. It's simple - do I buy a new Lexus or do I keep the Toyota and pay for a Medicare supplement that will cover quadruple-bypass surgery for my 88 year old Pop with severe coronary artery disease even if Medicare denies it? That's the decision families should make.

All I can say is that I worked on a medical research team many years ago and I saw how the system works. Its 80% about $$$ and 20% about what is good for the patient. Many times families put their elderly parents and grandparents through torment with little or no possibility of a good outcome, and the doctors and hospitals encourage this because it is highly profitable.

Think about it like this. If the end-of-life expenditures were cut by 30%, all the rest of our nations health care needs could be met at double the standard of care currently rendered, AND IT WOULD BE FREE (except for the medicare deduction). And in the end, the elderly would live longer because they'd get better health care before reaching that end-of-life crisis point.

 

[jreeves]

I limited the scope of the welfare issue to Federal spending because your arguments were w.r.t. the USA on the National level. To be sure there are some states that undertake rather significant welfare burdens - there are also quite a few that do not. But your arguments were made against the ~$2.8 trillion Federal budget so that was where I focused my argument.

If we are to expand the discussion to include state, county, and city spending, then of course we must also include state revenue in the total budget figure. If we do this, we probably about double the total budget (state income taxes are typcially about 30-40% of the Fed. level, and then there is sales taxes, property taxes, and use taxes to add in as well).

Your argument was about Federal welfare, and my point was simply that when all is said and done, our Federal government has a rather minimal role in welfare. I don't have time at the moment to work on a states analysis as it will take a bit more time than a Federal analysis, but I'll try to get to it next time I have some dead time available.



I'm not questioning that the SS trust fund has been raided. But how does this support your argument? Basically what you are saying is that because the generally conservative run government has been unable to keep its hands off of this fund, choosing to use it to supplement other types of programs, that this is an argument against SS? This does not make sense.



In the long run it would have made the economy stronger and healthier. Why should the average tax payer have to bail out the very rich when they make bad high-risk investments? By doing so, it simply sustains the wealth of those individuals and encourages such bad investing practices in the future.

I do not understand how you do not see the hypocrisy of supporting such welfare for the rich when you are so dead set against welfare for the poor.



Not at all. I am not saying the government should decide that someone should die, simply that they should decide when it is unreasonable for the Medicare tax payer to pay for it. Individual families should decide - and they should pay for their decision. It's simple - do I buy a new Lexus or do I keep the Toyota and pay for a Medicare supplement that will cover quadruple-bypass surgery for my 88 year old Pop with severe coronary artery disease even if Medicare denies it? That's the decision families should make.

All I can say is that I worked on a medical research team many years ago and I saw how the system works. Its 80% about $$$ and 20% about what is good for the patient. Many times families put their elderly parents and grandparents through torment with little or no possibility of a good outcome, and the doctors and hospitals encourage this because it is highly profitable.

Think about it like this. If the end-of-life expenditures were cut by 30%, all the rest of our nations health care needs could be met at double the standard of care currently rendered, AND IT WOULD BE FREE (except for the medicare deduction). And in the end, the elderly would live longer because they'd get better health care before reaching that end-of-life crisis point.

I see again you seem to breeze right around the complexity of welfare in this country. Even at the federal level it's not all contained in the DHHS. It is interwoven in throughout the federal departments, Agr., Hud, Education..pretty much every department in the federal government has some type of welfare spending involved as was laid out in my previous post. There are a few exceptions in which some type of welfare isn't associated with.

Your whole premise for excluding Medicare from your previous post is flawed. I showed you in a earlier post where Medicare funding does come from general tax revenue. It seems to me you should go and recalculate all of your findings. Since the premise for excluding Medicare from your social spending equation is flawed.
It doesn't matter how profitable keeping someone alive is, its an individuals right to decide if they want extraordinary measures taken. If HMO's were doing the same thing I have a feeling you would screaming, "Cold blooded Damn huge insurance companies!".

 

[jillian]

I take it you have nothing to contribute to the conservation other than partisian drivel.

RAFLMAO.... priceless coming from you. We're talking about the waste of our wealth that is Iraq and you want to talk about social security and medicare which BENEFIT us??

sad... incredibly sad.

 

[jreeves]

RAFLMAO.... priceless coming from you. We're talking about the waste of our wealth that is Iraq and you want to talk about social security and medicare which BENEFIT us??

sad... incredibly sad.

Same goes goes for you, show me how the war in Iraq will cost more than social spending this budget year?

 

[Warner]

I see again you seem to breeze right around the complexity of welfare in this country. Even at the federal level it's not all contained in the DHHS. It is interwoven in throughout the federal departments, Agr., Hud, Education..pretty much every department in the federal government has some type of welfare spending involved as was laid out in my previous post. There are a few exceptions in which some type of welfare isn't associated with.

No, you overstate it. HUD is the only significant additional "welfare" type program, accounting for something less than $30 billion in additional assistance. And it is kind of a double edge sword your looking at here, because in this case that $30 billion funnels indirectly through the hands of the poor and right into the hands of the wealthy (i.e. the landlords, real estate sellers, and bank investors), stimulating the housing sector of the economy.

As for the other departments, there is some "welfare" involved, but more often than not this is welfare to the rich, not the poor. Perhaps the department of Labor might be considered to also be "welfare", but again its total budget is minimal.

Regardless, even if you add up all the sources you've cited it's not going to amount to more than 5-6% of the federal budget. So your basic argument that welfare (to the poor) is out of hand in this country (on the national level) simply does not hold water.

Your whole premise for excluding Medicare from your previous post is flawed. I showed you in a earlier post where Medicare funding does come from general tax revenue. It seems to me you should go and recalculate all of your findings. Since the premise for excluding Medicare from your social spending equation is flawed.

Okay, lets add in the 40% of Medicare funded by the federal government general fund, this adds in another $15 billion or so (I don't have time to figure out the exact number, but it's less than the medicaid figure of ~$16 bil.), again not making a huge difference.

It doesn't matter how profitable keeping someone alive is, its an individuals right to decide if they want extraordinary measures taken. If HMO's were doing the same thing I have a feeling you would screaming, "Cold blooded Damn huge insurance companies!".

That depends entirely upon what the insurance company promised and what they deliver. I have no problem with an insurance company saying "we will cover this, but not that". I do have a problem with an insurance company that leads people to believe they are covered for things they are not.

It really seems strange to me that when it comes to end-of-life health care you seem to feel the tax payer is responsible to foot the bill, but when it comes to the rest of someone's life, it is an unfair burden for the tax payer to provide assistance.

At this point I'm just looking for a little consistency from you Jreeves. Doesn't it seem right under your general philosophy that the tax payer should provide NO END-OF-LIFE MEDICAL SUBSIDIES AT ALL? Shouldn't it be up to the individual to foot the bill for their own end-of-life expenses?

 

[Warner]

Same goes goes for you, show me how the war in Iraq will cost more than social spending this budget year?

There you go again, lumping all "social spending" together and implying that it is all "welfare". Roads are not welfare, nor do I think you consider Homeland Security to be welfare. The NIH is not welfare.

When you tear out the portion of the budget which aids the lowest quarter of the American population it just really isn't that much.

And besides, when you add up the cost of the War (both in Iraq and Afghanistan), both the portion that is part of the budget and the supplemental portion, it is more anyway. The bulk of the Homeland security budget should be considered part of the War on Terror too. And the military pensions portion of the entitlements budget should really be accounted on the cost of wars side of the equation don't you think?

 

[jreeves]

No, you overstate it. HUD is the only significant additional "welfare" type program, accounting for something less than $30 billion in additional assistance. And it is kind of a double edge sword your looking at here, because in this case that $30 billion funnels indirectly through the hands of the poor and right into the hands of the wealthy (i.e. the landlords, real estate sellers, and bank investors), stimulating the housing sector of the economy.

As for the other departments, there is some "welfare" involved, but more often than not this is welfare to the rich, not the poor. Perhaps the department of Labor might be considered to also be "welfare", but again its total budget is minimal.

Regardless, even if you add up all the sources you've cited it's not going to amount to more than 5-6% of the federal budget. So your basic argument that welfare (to the poor) is out of hand in this country (on the national level) simply does not hold water.



Okay, lets add in the 40% of Medicare funded by the federal government general fund, this adds in another $15 billion or so (I don't have time to figure out the exact number, but it's less than the medicaid figure of ~$16 bil.), again not making a huge difference.



That depends entirely upon what the insurance company promised and what they deliver. I have no problem with an insurance company saying "we will cover this, but not that". I do have a problem with an insurance company that leads people to believe they are covered for things they are not.

It really seems strange to me that when it comes to end-of-life health care you seem to feel the tax payer is responsible to foot the bill, but when it comes to the rest of someone's life, it is an unfair burden for the tax payer to provide assistance.

At this point I'm just looking for a little consistency from you Jreeves. Doesn't it seem right under your general philosophy that the tax payer should provide NO END-OF-LIFE MEDICAL SUBSIDIES AT ALL? Shouldn't it be up to the individual to foot the bill for their own end-of-life expenses?

Show proof please of all of your baseless rants? In your post explaining your position you provide no general spending for medicare. Then you say well even if 40 % is contributed toward Medicare then that's still a low number. Then you say Hud is the only major contributor to social programs. Hello didn't you read my previous post about the overall soical programs in this country, it's not small by any means. Social Security as both you and me know isn't just for retiring folks, a huge part of the trust fund is gone(1.8 trillion dollars). You levy baseless allegations that the Gop has taken most of it. What about all of those people drawing SS benefits that are mentally disabled who is as sane as you? I'm not reposting the numbers cause I hope you can read.
As far as end of life care, I was making a point and the falliacy of the program. The government can't pull the plug on someone's life because it is morally wrong. The whole reason they shouldn't be running government healthcare for the old.

 

[jreeves]

Show proof please of all of your baseless rants? In your post explaining your position you provide no general spending for medicare. Then you say well even if 40 % is contributed toward Medicare then that's still a low number. Then you say Hud is the only major contributor to social programs. Hello didn't you read my previous post about the overall soical programs in this country, it's not small by any means. Social Security as both you and me know isn't just for retiring folks, a huge part of the trust fund is gone(1.8 trillion dollars). You levy baseless allegations that the Gop has taken most of it. What about all of those people drawing SS benefits that are mentally disabled who is as sane as you? I'm not reposting the numbers cause I hope you can read.
As far as end of life care, I was making a point and the falliacy of the program. The government can't pull the plug on someone's life because it is morally wrong. The whole reason they shouldn't be running government healthcare for the old.

Of course 313 billion in means tested welfare is a low number to you. That's not even counting entitlement spending.

 

[jreeves]

There you go again, lumping all "social spending" together and implying that it is all "welfare". Roads are not welfare, nor do I think you consider Homeland Security to be welfare. The NIH is not welfare.

When you tear out the portion of the budget which aids the lowest quarter of the American population it just really isn't that much.

And besides, when you add up the cost of the War (both in Iraq and Afghanistan), both the portion that is part of the budget and the supplemental portion, it is more anyway. The bulk of the Homeland security budget should be considered part of the War on Terror too. And the military pensions portion of the entitlements budget should really be accounted on the cost of wars side of the equation don't you think?

Really the wars in Iraq and Afgan. cost over 300 billion.

 

[jreeves]

Of course 313 billion in means tested welfare is a low number to you. That's not even counting entitlement spending.

Excuse me thought I had posted that article on this thread here you go.

Total federal and state spending on welfare programs was $434 billion in FY 2000. Of that total, $313 billion (72 percent) came from federal funding and $121 billion (28 percent) came from state or local funds. (See Chart 1.)

That was 7 fiscal years ago, can you imagine what the number today would be?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm

 

[Warner]

Show proof please of all of your baseless rants? In your post explaining your position you provide no general spending for medicare. Then you say well even if 40 % is contributed toward Medicare then that's still a low number. Then you say Hud is the only major contributor to social programs. Hello didn't you read my previous post about the overall soical programs in this country, it's not small by any means. Social Security as both you and me know isn't just for retiring folks, a huge part of the trust fund is gone(1.8 trillion dollars). You levy baseless allegations that the Gop has taken most of it. What about all of those people drawing SS benefits that are mentally disabled who is as sane as you? I'm not reposting the numbers cause I hope you can read.
As far as end of life care, I was making a point and the falliacy of the program. The government can't pull the plug on someone's life because it is morally wrong. The whole reason they shouldn't be running government healthcare for the old.

Jeeze. I took 40% of Medicare spending and added it to the Social spending figure, as you suggested should be done. I added in all of the relevant portions of the HUD budget too. As for Social Security, right now it is still paid out of the fund - tomorrow that might not be the case, but for today it is. So I've included every number you've presented as "should be included", and still the total is well below 10% of the Fed. budget.

As for the end-of-life care, I'm not saying the government should pull any plugs - I'm saying the should opt not to put the plug in in the first place.

 

[Warner]

Excuse me thought I had posted that article on this thread here you go.

Total federal and state spending on welfare programs was $434 billion in FY 2000. Of that total, $313 billion (72 percent) came from federal funding and $121 billion (28 percent) came from state or local funds. (See Chart 1.)

That was 7 fiscal years ago, can you imagine what the number today would be?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm

Sure, but again you are including all "entitlements" as welfare, and this is just not valid. And also SS is still entirely paid out of its trust fund and Medicare (by your figures) is still 60% paid by its contributors. You seem to want to cite data from some highly bias source without actually looking at the details of that data. I hardly think you would consider military pensions to be "welfare", but that's what you're arguing.

 

[jreeves]

Sure, but again you are including all "entitlements" as welfare, and this is just not valid. And also SS is still entirely paid out of its trust fund and Medicare (by your figures) is still 60% paid by its contributors. You seem to want to cite data from some highly bias source without actually looking at the details of that data. I hardly think you would consider military pensions to be "welfare", but that's what you're arguing.

For one the article, doesn't use military pensions in it's figures, only means tested welfare spending. No, Medicare is paid from payroll taxes and the general revenue at a clip of 81%. Of course it's highly biased because it clearly shows the extent of welfare spending.

 

[Warner]

For one the article, doesn't use military pensions in it's figures, only means tested welfare spending. No, Medicare is paid from payroll taxes and the general revenue at a clip of 81%. Of course it's highly biased because it clearly shows the extent of welfare spending.

The source you provided showed that only 40% of Medicare is payed from the General fund, the rest is paid from payroll deductions which are specifically for medicare insurance. So the 81% figure is just pure bunk.

I don't see any way that figure from the Heritage Foundation can not include government pensions, there isn't anywhere else the about $200 billion discrepancy could come from - it has to come from SS and gov't pensions. You cannot really say either since the article you present provides no breakdown of what it considers to be welfare and what it does not.

Oh, and I consider a foundation funded by Joseph Coors, Richard Mellon (now from his daughter via the Scaife Foundations), South Korean Intelligence, Samsung (also S. Korea), "87 top corporations", and so clearly entrenched in the Neo-Conservative movement, to be heavily bias. The ties to Rev. Sun Myoung Moon are further cause for skepticism. Consider this quote from the 1994 issue of of the Heritage Foundation "Policy Review", which is considered to be their mission statment:

"Liberation is at hand.... A paradigm-shattering revolution has just taken place. In the signal events of the 1980s - from the collapse of communism to the Reagan economic boom to the rise of the computer - the idea of economic freedom has been overwhelmingly vindicated. The intellectual foundation of statism has turned to dust. This revolution has been so sudden and sweeping that few in Washington have yet grasped its full meaning.... But when the true significance of the 1980s freedom revolution sinks in, politics, culture - indeed, the entire human outlook - will change.... Once this shift takes place - by 1996, I predict - we will be able to advance a true Hayekian agenda, including.... radical spending cuts, the end of the public school monopoly, a free market health-care system, and the elimination of the family-destroying welfare dole. Unlike 1944, history is now on the side of freedom." -- former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey

Clearly they have an agenda, no?

Sorry but you're going to have to actually show what is included in the figures you present. Simply going to some site that says something you like and quoting it is not enough. Too many such sites play too many games with the numbers for that to be acceptable.

 

[jreeves]

The source you provided showed that only 40% of Medicare is payed from the General fund, the rest is paid from payroll deductions which are specifically for medicare insurance. So the 81% figure is just pure bunk.

I don't see any way that figure from the Heritage Foundation can not include government pensions, there isn't anywhere else the about $200 billion discrepancy could come from - it has to come from SS and gov't pensions. You cannot really say either since the article you present provides no breakdown of what it considers to be welfare and what it does not.

Oh, and I consider a foundation funded by Joseph Coors, Richard Mellon (now from his daughter via the Scaife Foundations), South Korean Intelligence, Samsung (also S. Korea), "87 top corporations", and so clearly entrenched in the Neo-Conservative movement, to be heavily bias. The ties to Rev. Sun Myoung Moon are further cause for skepticism. Consider this quote from the 1994 issue of of the Heritage Foundation "Policy Review", which is considered to be their mission statment:


Clearly they have an agenda, no?

Sorry but you're going to have to actually show what is included in the figures you present. Simply going to some site that says something you like and quoting it is not enough. Too many such sites play too many games with the numbers for that to be acceptable.

As I can see you won't accept facts but if it helps here's another article for you. It was actually published in the Charlotte Observer originally. Well here goes nothing....

Yet, last year, the federal government spent more than $477 billion on some 50 different programs to fight poverty. That amounts to $12,892 for every poor man, woman, and child in this country. And it does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local governments. For all the talk about Republican budget cuts, spending on these social programs has increased an inflation-adjusted 22 percent since President Bush took office.

Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies and author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society.

More by Michael D. Tanner
Despite this government largesse, 37 million Americans continue to live in poverty. In fact, despite nearly $9 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where it was when we began, more than 40 years ago.

Clearly we are doing something wrong. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient. But government welfare programs have torn at the social fabric of the country and been a significant factor in increasing out-of-wedlock births with all of their attendant problems. They have weakened the work ethic and contributed to rising crime rates. Most tragically of all, the pathologies they engender have been passed on from parent to child, from generation to generation.

Welfare reform was supposed to fix all that. And, indeed, it has had some positive effects. Welfare rolls are down. Since 1996, roughly 2.5 million families have left the program, a 57 percent decline. Critics predicted that welfare reform would throw millions into greater poverty. Instead, it led to modest reductions in poverty, particularly for children, black children, and single-mother households. Most of those who left welfare found work, and of them, the vast majority work full-time. As you would expect, studies show that as former welfare recipients gain work experience, their earnings and benefits increase.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6698

 

[jreeves]

As I can see you won't accept facts but if it helps here's another article for you. It was actually published in the Charlotte Observer originally. Well here goes nothing....

Yet, last year, the federal government spent more than $477 billion on some 50 different programs to fight poverty. That amounts to $12,892 for every poor man, woman, and child in this country. And it does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local governments. For all the talk about Republican budget cuts, spending on these social programs has increased an inflation-adjusted 22 percent since President Bush took office.

Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies and author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society.

More by Michael D. Tanner
Despite this government largesse, 37 million Americans continue to live in poverty. In fact, despite nearly $9 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where it was when we began, more than 40 years ago.

Clearly we are doing something wrong. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient. But government welfare programs have torn at the social fabric of the country and been a significant factor in increasing out-of-wedlock births with all of their attendant problems. They have weakened the work ethic and contributed to rising crime rates. Most tragically of all, the pathologies they engender have been passed on from parent to child, from generation to generation.

Welfare reform was supposed to fix all that. And, indeed, it has had some positive effects. Welfare rolls are down. Since 1996, roughly 2.5 million families have left the program, a 57 percent decline. Critics predicted that welfare reform would throw millions into greater poverty. Instead, it led to modest reductions in poverty, particularly for children, black children, and single-mother households. Most of those who left welfare found work, and of them, the vast majority work full-time. As you would expect, studies show that as former welfare recipients gain work experience, their earnings and benefits increase.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6698

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare

Let me see here 40% of Medicare + 276.4 billion + 294=728.2 billion dollars
That's not counting welfare built into other departments. Plus the 728.2 billion dollars share of the national debt. Is that a credible enough website for you?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wait, let me get this right, taxes are not taxes if they are for Social Security or Medicare? Except Congress everyone pays into Social Security and Medicare even if there is absolutely no way they will ever be able to collect back on the programs. All with NO voice and no choice.

And then the Federal Government steals the Social Security taxes and uses them for all their pet projects. Tell me what would happen to a bank or Credit Union if it took your money in as a fund for retirement and then spent it on what ever it pleased while writing IOU's that would depend on more money coming in from the same manner.

 

[Warner]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare

Let me see here 40% of Medicare + 276.4 billion + 294=728.2 billion dollars
That's not counting welfare built into other departments. Plus the 728.2 billion dollars share of the national debt. Is that a credible enough website for you?

I'm not disputing those numbers. However, you cannot include Unemployment since this is paid via unemployment insurance contributions. "other health related" also cannot be included as this includes the CDC, NIH, and other health expenses which clearly are not welfare.

You really crack me up. On the one hand you object to my "the tax payer should not be burdened with excessive end-of-life expenses", and then the great bulk of your welfare argument is composed of.... government subsidization of end-of-life expenses. THIS IS WHERE THE BIGGEST CHUNK OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID IS SPENT!

So basically you are arguing against yourself! LOL

Rather than continue to go in circles, why don't we eliminate the medicare/medicaid part of this discussion for now, until we can determine how much is spent on what. Lets also eliminate Social Security since this is separate from the Federal Budget. Lets remove the unemployment part of the "welfare" number. Then we can look at true welfare and see if it really is an excessive burden on the American tax payer.

 

[Warner]

Wait, let me get this right, taxes are not taxes if they are for Social Security or Medicare? Except Congress everyone pays into Social Security and Medicare even if there is absolutely no way they will ever be able to collect back on the programs. All with NO voice and no choice.

And then the Federal Government steals the Social Security taxes and uses them for all their pet projects. Tell me what would happen to a bank or Credit Union if it took your money in as a fund for retirement and then spent it on what ever it pleased while writing IOU's that would depend on more money coming in from the same manner.

Grrrr....

No RGS.

However, you cannot take SS and figure as a percentage against the Fed. Budget when it is not paid out of the Fed. Budget and the money going into the SS fund is not counted as part of the Fed. Budget. It totally distorts the picture.

If you wish to find out how much the total SS contribution is, add this into the budget, and then figure the numbers, this would be valid.

Same argument goes for Medicare.

 

[jreeves]

I'm not disputing those numbers. However, you cannot include Unemployment since this is paid via unemployment insurance contributions. "other health related" also cannot be included as this includes the CDC, NIH, and other health expenses which clearly are not welfare.

You really crack me up. On the one hand you object to my "the tax payer should not be burdened with excessive end-of-life expenses", and then the great bulk of your welfare argument is composed of.... government subsidization of end-of-life expenses. THIS IS WHERE THE BIGGEST CHUNK OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID IS SPENT!

So basically you are arguing against yourself! LOL

Rather than continue to go in circles, why don't we eliminate the medicare/medicaid part of this discussion for now, until we can determine how much is spent on what. Lets also eliminate Social Security since this is separate from the Federal Budget. Lets remove the unemployment part of the "welfare" number. Then we can look at true welfare and see if it really is an excessive burden on the American tax payer.

As far as end of life care, I was making a point and the falliacy of the program. The government can't pull the plug on someone's life because it is morally wrong. The whole reason they shouldn 't be running government healthcare for the old. That's my post from earlier...enough said I think I don't support Medicare or Medicaid in any direct or indirect way. Why should we eliminate either, its my point social spending is out of control. Over 700 billion dollars in social spending I was able to show you from a simple pie chart and there is countless other dollars that are ingrained in the other departments as I have said before. But I don't think you would admit it if it were to slap you in the face.