Iraq - $5,000 per Second

[Warner]

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.

Quite the contrary. I never said there is not a lot of social spending. I never said that I don't believe a lot of it is poorly spent and should probably be cut. However I do think that there are many valid social programs that should be continued, and some that should even be expanded. So I ask you to point out what programs specifically you think should be eliminated. I personally believe up to about 25% of the Federal budget should be spent on "social programs".

As for your argument concerning Medicare and end-of-life expenses, it just another case of contradictory conservative values. You believe the government should not make the moral decision not to pay for costly medical procedures for the elderly which do not have a significant chance meaningfully extend a persons life. If the government is in for a penny they should be in for a million bucks. Therefore, your answer is that the government should not be involved at all. And this means that only the very wealthy will receive such care even when there is a significant chance of meaningfully extending a person's life!

Do you see the contradiction? It is you, not me, who puts a dollar value on life. The problem as I see it is that too often the best interest of the patient is to let them die. Putting them through triple bi-pass surgery (for example) after they go into heart failure is a loosing proposition. It is rare for such a person to ever recover to the point of having any quality of life. If they do live longer than they would have w/o the surgery, it usually time spent in misery. However, such procedures are highly profitable and the doctors and hospitals are all to willing to sell the desperate family on the tiny hope that there will be a good outcome.

Note: such procedures should be done before a person goes into heart-failure, when there is a reasonably good chance of a good outcome. However, again our medical system pretty much denies such expensive medical care until the point where the only other option is to let the person die. This is wasteful, foolish, and cruel.

I guarantee you that if it were entirely privately run no insurance company would offer blanket medical coverage to anyone over about 60 years of age, or if they did the costs would be astronomical. A 70 year old in good health would have to pay well over $100,000 a year for insurance.

I find it funny that you are so quick to want to cut out "social spending", but when the topic of corporate welfare and welfare to the rich (i.e. bank bailouts) was mentioned you seemed to feel this was somewhat acceptable.

Let me ask you this Jreeves.... how much do you make a year and were you born into money? I'm just curious.

 

[jreeves]

Grrrr... You keep harping on "Social Spending". Break it down please. What "Social Spending" would you include in this figure?

Paying of Military pensions? (shouldn't this really be part of the military budget?)

Paying of Social Security or Medicare? (both paid into by the recipients)

If you are talking about actual aid to the poor, you are talking about practically nothing.

This is the first post on this thread, you stated that if I was talking about aid to the poor then I was talking about pratically nothing. I think at least over 700 billion isn't pratically nothing.

 

[Warner]

This is the first post on this thread, you stated that if I was talking about aid to the poor then I was talking about pratically nothing. I think at least over 700 billion isn't pratically nothing.

Ummm... most of the "social spending" you've cited does not go to the poor!

Mostly you're talking about Medicare and Social Security, and even unemployment insurance. None of these are primarily for the poor. It is the middle and upper middle class that consume the majority of these program dollars. Medicaid is more oriented to the poor, but still more than half of this allocation does not go to the "poor". Likewise huge portions of many of the other programs you're considering as helping the poor are really more aimed at the lower middle and middle class. This is why I asked you what is your place in our society? More likely than not you are receiving more from these programs than most of the poor do!

This is why I've asked you to provide some kind of a breakdown of how much goes where. If you were really to research it, you'd see that the amount of Federal aid that really goes to the poor is not that much. Again, I don't have the time to work the numbers right now but I'd bet $450 bil. of that "over $700 billion" goes to the non-poor. This is especially true if you look at the elderly who currently would be considered poor but who were solidly middle class when they were in their income earning years.

 

[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.

The federal government lends money to the states for unemployment insurance when the states run short of funds. In general, this can happen when the unemployment rate is high. The need for loans can be exacerbated when a state cuts taxes and increases benefits. All loans must be repaid, with interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefit

As you can see, social spending is also ingrained in state budgets as well by this FMAP for Medicaid benefits. In other words the Feds pick up the percentage of Medicaid shown in the column the States pick up the rest.
http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/health/MA.htm
Unemployment benefits are almost solely funded by the states not the federal government. The federal government loans states money during high unemployement rates, in which the states must repay.

The federal government lends money to the states for unemployment insurance when the states run short of funds. In general, this can happen when the unemployment rate is high. The need for loans can be exacerbated when a state cuts taxes and increases benefits. All loans must be repaid, with interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefit

 

[jreeves]

Ummm... most of the "social spending" you've cited does not go to the poor!

Mostly you're talking about Medicare and Social Security, and even unemployment insurance. None of these are primarily for the poor. It is the middle and upper middle class that consume the majority of these program dollars. Medicaid is more oriented to the poor, but still more than half of this allocation does not go to the "poor". Likewise huge portions of many of the other programs you're considering as helping the poor are really more aimed at the lower middle and middle class. This is why I asked you what is your place in our society? More likely than not you are receiving more from these programs than most of the poor do!

This is why I've asked you to provide some kind of a breakdown of how much goes where. If you were really to research it, you'd see that the amount of Federal aid that really goes to the poor is not that much. Again, I don't have the time to work the numbers right now but I'd bet $450 bil. of that "over $700 billion" goes to the non-poor. This is especially true if you look at the elderly who currently would be considered poor but who were solidly middle class when they were in their income earning years.

Other than your assumptions can you show where 728 billion dollars go. I have shown you that unemployment benefits are largely funded by the states not the federal government. Even if unemployment was funded by federal dollars are you telling me its not a program designed for the poor. Have you seen what the benefits are for unemployment. Hardly enough for someone that has a 100,000 dollar a year salary to substain their lifestyle. As far as Social Security goes, I didn't even add it into my calculations.
All of these social programs are designed for the poor, thinking otherwise is nonsense.

 

[Care4all]

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.

simply a fabrication! congress pays SS and medicare insurance....for over 25 years now....?

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcongress.htm

 

[Care4all]

Other than your assumptions can you show where 728 billion dollars go. I have shown you that unemployment benefits are largely funded by the states not the federal government. Even if unemployment was funded by federal dollars are you telling me its not a program designed for the poor. Have you seen what the benefits are for unemployment. Hardly enough for someone that has a 100,000 dollar a year salary to substain their lifestyle. As far as Social Security goes, I didn't even add it into my calculations.
All of these social programs are designed for the poor, thinking otherwise is nonsense.

unemployment is paid for by an unemployment tax on all employers of each state for every employee they employ.

unemploment is NOT for the poor or indigent, it is for the WORKING CLASS, middle america....

and unemployment payments vary by state, because the tax on employers varies by state...

unemployment payments maxed in massachusetts at $522 bucks a week, while florida as example was maxed at $275 a week....every state is different, based on the cost of living and unemployment taxed rate on employers.

 

[jreeves]

unemployment is paid for by an unemployment tax on all employers of each state for every employee they employ.

unemploment is NOT for the poor or indigent, it is for the WORKING CLASS, middle america....

and unemployment payments vary by state, because the tax on employers varies by state...

unemployment payments maxed in massachusetts at $522 bucks a week, while florida as example was maxed at $275 a week....every state is different, based on the cost of living and unemployment taxed rate on employers.

Still doesn't change the fact it is designed for the poor. $522 a week, that's about $27,000 a year, that's designed for a middle class worker. That wouldn't pay the bills. I am aware that benefits vary by state, but that was my point it almost entirely funded at the state level.

 

[jreeves]

simply a fabrication! congress pays SS and medicare insurance....for over 25 years now....?

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcongress.htm

I think he was saying that don't pay into Social Security and Medicare.

 

[Care4all]

Still doesn't change the fact it is designed for the poor. $522 a week, that's about $27,000 a year, that's designed for a middle class worker. That wouldn't pay the bills. I am aware that benefits vary by state, but that was my point it almost entirely funded at the state level.

it is not meant to pay the bills, who said it was? it was meant to allow the middle class worker, when laid off, the allowance to hunt for a new job without feeling the pressure of taking another job that is under your ability and payscale hastily.... and out of desperation.

 

[Care4all]

I think he was saying that don't pay into Social Security and Medicare.

congress does pay the ss and medicare tax and have done such for 25 years now????

 

[jreeves]

it is not meant to pay the bills, who said it was? it was meant to allow the middle class worker, when laid off, the allowance to hunt for a new job without feeling the pressure of taking another job that is under your ability and payscale hastily.... and out of desperation.

Yep no pressure at all if you were making $90,000 a year and now your getting weekly payments of $27,000 a year. While your house payments, car payments, electric bills....etc... pile up(no pressure though)

 

[jreeves]

congress does pay the ss and medicare tax and have done such for 25 years now????

Ok...I read the shaded part of your post which I thought you were agreeing with him....I seen the bottom part of your source and now I understand what you were saying.

 

[Paulie]

Still doesn't change the fact it is designed for the poor. $522 a week, that's about $27,000 a year, that's designed for a middle class worker. That wouldn't pay the bills. I am aware that benefits vary by state, but that was my point it almost entirely funded at the state level.

jreeves, $520/wk is quite liveable. I live in NJ, one of the most expensive states. Before I started my family and lived with my girlfriend, I was making around 500-550/wk, and was living quite comfortably on my own while paying a $1000/mo rent by myself. I am very fiscally responsible. Always have been. That's what it's all about, being responsible and living within your means.

I realize that if you're getting $520/wk from unemployment, that it's less than what you're USED to making, but it's a pretty nice amount of money to be getting basically for free until you either find another job, or are re-activated at your current one.

Unemployment benefits are not comparable to other entitlement programs, as at least with unemployment that state is actively seeking a job for you, and REQUIRES you to take that job or you lose your benefits. In NJ, you must also be actively seeking your own work as well, and also must be willing to accept a job that the state finds for you, or your benefits will stop.

What's so bad about that?

 

[Care4all]

Yep no pressure at all if you were making $90,000 a year and now your getting weekly payments of $27,000 a year. While your house payments, car payments, electric bills....etc... pile up(no pressure though)

Most people that qualify for the $520 clear a week unemployment have a safetynet fund saved and with the $520 they can get by without having to declare bankruptcy as they are seeking employment...plus many of these people have a spouce that is also bringing in some money.

most states are "at will" states, where the employer can lay you off without reason....unemployment insurance is paid by the employer because of such....if they want to fire you FOR NO GOOD REASON at all then they know that they will get a strike against them and if they repeatedly fire their employees at will then their unemployment Insurance tax will GO UP....they get penalized.

This adds SOME stability to the market place for workers and helps combat the laizefaire situation that employers have in terminating "at will" for no good reason.


care

 

[Care4all]

In addition to this the employee does not qualify for unemployment payments UNLESS they have worked the previous 6 months minimum.

Unemployment insurance is not welfare for the poor or the indigent.

 

[Warner]

Other than your assumptions can you show where 728 billion dollars go.

It's your figure... why don't you show where it goes? I say that more than half of that figure does not go to the "poor" (lets define that is the lowest quintile of income). It's up to you to show it does.

I have shown you that unemployment benefits are largely funded by the states not the federal government. Even if unemployment was funded by federal dollars are you telling me its not a program designed for the poor. Have you seen what the benefits are for unemployment. Hardly enough for someone that has a 100,000 dollar a year salary to substain their lifestyle.

You are the one who brought unemployment benefits into this discussion. Now you argue it does not belong??? Make up your mind!

Of course the UE benefit does not sustain a person's life style. It is not meant to do that. But $1200 a month goes a lot further than $0 a month, even for someone making $100,000/year (this about the benefit amount for CA at the $100000 income level in 2005).

As far as Social Security goes, I didn't even add it into my calculations.
All of these social programs are designed for the poor, thinking otherwise is nonsense.

You didn't calculate anything. You referenced an article which does not specify how it came up with its $728 bil. figure, so how can you say it does or does not include SS, or that all the Social programs are designed for the poor when you don't know what's included in the figure you quote?

 

[jreeves]

jreeves, $520/wk is quite liveable. I live in NJ, one of the most expensive states. Before I started my family and lived with my girlfriend, I was making around 500-550/wk, and was living quite comfortably on my own while paying a $1000/mo rent by myself. I am very fiscally responsible. Always have been. That's what it's all about, being responsible and living within your means.

I realize that if you're getting $520/wk from unemployment, that it's less than what you're USED to making, but it's a pretty nice amount of money to be getting basically for free until you either find another job, or are re-activated at your current one.

Unemployment benefits are not comparable to other entitlement programs, as at least with unemployment that state is actively seeking a job for you, and REQUIRES you to take that job or you lose your benefits. In NJ, you must also be actively seeking your own work as well, and also must be willing to accept a job that the state finds for you, or your benefits will stop.

What's so bad about that?

If you have a house payment, car payment, kids to feed, etc... and you lived at a $100,000 lifestyle. Then accepting unemployment benefits is unfeasible, you must return to work immediately. I think most definetly there are worse programs though.

 

[jreeves]

It's your figure... why don't you show where it goes? I say that more than half of that figure does not go to the "poor" (lets define that is the lowest quintile of income). It's up to you to show it does.



You are the one who brought unemployment benefits into this discussion. Now you argue it does not belong??? Make up your mind!

Of course the UE benefit does not sustain a person's life style. It is not meant to do that. But $1200 a month goes a lot further than $0 a month, even for someone making $100,000/year (this about the benefit amount for CA at the $100000 income level in 2005).



You didn't calculate anything. You referenced an article which does not specify how it came up with its $728 bil. figure, so how can you say it does or does not include SS, or that all the Social programs are designed for the poor when you don't know what's included in the figure you quote?

Lmao....I referenced Wikepedia...oh...there so partisian...Lmao
I see to remember you making a post, questioning how much of the welfare and unemployment on wikpedia site, goes to unemployment. Well, it's safe to say not whole lot. My friend it's 728 billion dollars in soical spending, slice it or dice it you will still find 728 billion dollars in soical spending for the poor.

 

[Warner]

Lmao....I referenced Wikepedia...oh...there so partisian...Lmao
I see to remember you making a post, questioning how much of the welfare and unemployment on wikpedia site, goes to unemployment. Well, it's safe to say not whole lot. My friend it's 728 billion dollars in soical spending, slice it or dice it you will still find 728 billion dollars in soical spending for the poor.

No you won't. You'll find less than half that spending is aimed at the poor.

Again, you've presented a figure.... justify it. The fact is you can't. Either because you do not know how to look beneath the surface of your source and find out how they computed their $728B figure or, more likely, that when you try you find that in fact there is a lot of it which goes to the non-poor.