We Need a Whole New Way of Thinking About Government

[Jarhead]

I believe..

Our government was not designed to support the people. It was designed AS A support for the people.
The people are to support the government....not the other way around.

Yes the original way of thinking about government--which would seem to be a whole new way of thinking about government for many now--is that it is a necessary evil, a beast that must be fed but kept limited and confined. The Founders knew that would require due diligence as freedom had been bought at high cost and could be lost due to apathy, greed, sloth, or ignorance.

The U.S. federal government was NEVER intended to support or govern the people. It was intended as the means by which the people's rights would be secured so that they could be the first civilization ever that would be free to govern themselves and pursue whatever goals they hoped to attain.

Yes. I agree.
Sadly, many see the government as our leaders...no...they are our representatives.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's the problem folks. As much as some likes to think that government MUST provide for the 'needy', entitlement programs simply cannot be sustained. Every single one that has ever been started is starved for funds, is adding to the deficit, is growing the debt, and we simply cannot continue down that road and believe that the USA will remain a great, powerful, affluent nation.

And, in my opinion, it all could have been avoided by letting the private sector work it out. The private sector has never yet failed to provide a product that people could afford when there has been a need.

We need a whole new way of looking at that and a solution to fix it that begins very soon.

I have to correct you, its not opinion but fact, fix that and your a 99% correct.

We also do not need a new way to fix the problem, the old way is best, let people who want to live in the USA work towards paying off the failed actions of politicians. Notice there is no R or D in politicians, politicians are human thus we suffer the failings of human nature, human nature crosses party lines.

Our problem is that the politicians have stagnated every aspect of our lives, more government solutions means more of the same, the only solution is to take away all the power and allow the economy to grow by leaps and bounds.

Thats the irony of the question of what I think Goivernment should do to stimulate the economy.

My answer is absolutely nothing.

I truly believe that is not only the answer...but the way it is supposed to be.

The present government, however, can do some very fine tuning here and there. There's an old saw: If you want something to decrease, tax it. If you want something to increase, subsidize it.

Okay there are definitely practical limitations to those two statements, but sometimes the government does need to intervene on a very limited basis. For instance, it is prudent for the government to regulate interstate commerce to prevent a large or affluent state from beating up on a smaller or less affluent one. And it is within the prerogative of the federal government to develop treaties that open international markets for U.S. products and allow us to import what we can't practically make here. Right now the U.S. does not produce all of its petroleum needs, for instance, so we do need to obtain that from other places. The federal government can open those markets so that we can import what we need.

The federal government can also endorse laws and regulations that make it possible for Americans to exploit more of our own oil resources too.

It makes NO sense whatsoever to ban U.S. production when we are environmentally conscious and believe in conducting business responsibly and ethically and then purchase our oil from places that are not environmentally conscious, responsible, or ethical.

 

[Jarhead]

I have to correct you, its not opinion but fact, fix that and your a 99% correct.

We also do not need a new way to fix the problem, the old way is best, let people who want to live in the USA work towards paying off the failed actions of politicians. Notice there is no R or D in politicians, politicians are human thus we suffer the failings of human nature, human nature crosses party lines.

Our problem is that the politicians have stagnated every aspect of our lives, more government solutions means more of the same, the only solution is to take away all the power and allow the economy to grow by leaps and bounds.

Thats the irony of the question of what I think Goivernment should do to stimulate the economy.

My answer is absolutely nothing.

I truly believe that is not only the answer...but the way it is supposed to be.

The present government, however, can do some very fine tuning here and there. There's an old saw: If you want something to decrease, tax it. If you want something to increase, subsidize it.

Okay there are definitely practical limitations to those two statements, but sometimes the government does need to intervene on a very limited basis. For instance, it is prudent for the government to regulate interstate commerce to prevent a large or affluent state from beating up on a smaller or less affluent one. And it is within the prerogative of the federal government to develop treaties that open international markets for U.S. products and allow us to import what we can't practically make here. Right now the U.S. does not produce all of its petroleum needs, for instance, so we do need to obtain that from other places. The federal government can open those markets so that we can import what we need.

The federal government can also endorse laws and regulations that make it possible for Americans to exploit more of our own oil resources too.

It makes NO sense whatsoever to ban U.S. production when we are environmentally conscious and believe in conducting business responsibly and ethically and then purchase our oil from places that are not environmentally conscious, responsible, or ethical.

Well said. Thanks for elaborating on and supplementing my answer.

 

[syrenn]

True. If people were more responsible we would have a lot less social problems. But until we discover how to make that happen we have to deal with the problems. Unfortunately ignoring the problems do not make them go away.

Taking the checks away would make the problem of personal responsibility go away. So long as parents know up front that they can apply for government assistance to pay for their babies , they will continue to have babies that they cannot afford.

I also feel that once you apply for assistance the number of children at the time is all you will EVER be paid for. So if you have more children over and above the ones you cannot afford at the moment, tough. Make what you are getting for the ones you have go farther to support any more you have.

So you would make the babies suffer? How sweet.

Why don't we just tie tubes when they are about 8 years old. Then after your an adult, have a means of supporting yourself, you are married & responsibile and have a home, and if you want a child then and meet the financial tests, you get your tubes untied. After the birth they are tied again.

Put the blame where it belongs. The Parents are making their children suffer. Not me, not you and not the government. However when parents cannot afford the children they have THEY are making everyone suffer.

I would not suggest tying tubes of 8 year olds, that is rather ridiculous. They do have a chance to prove they are responsible. I do agree about tying tubes of women who are baby machines who cannot afford their children and expect the government to pay for them. Mistakes happen so payments should be cut off at one child. Twice is not a mistake its irresponsible.

 

[Foxfyre]

Taking the checks away would make the problem of personal responsibility go away. So long as parents know up front that they can apply for government assistance to pay for their babies , they will continue to have babies that they cannot afford.

I also feel that once you apply for assistance the number of children at the time is all you will EVER be paid for. So if you have more children over and above the ones you cannot afford at the moment, tough. Make what you are getting for the ones you have go farther to support any more you have.

So you would make the babies suffer? How sweet.

Why don't we just tie tubes when they are about 8 years old. Then after your an adult, have a means of supporting yourself, you are married & responsibile and have a home, and if you want a child then and meet the financial tests, you get your tubes untied. After the birth they are tied again.

Put the blame where it belongs. The Parents are making their children suffer. Not me, not you and not the government. However when parents cannot afford the children they have THEY are making everyone suffer.

I would not suggest tying tubes of 8 year olds, that is rather ridiculous. They do have a chance to prove they are responsible. I do agree about tying tubes of women who are baby machines who cannot afford their children and expect the government to pay for them. Mistakes happen so payments should be cut off at one child. Twice is not a mistake its irresponsible.

I agree that children should not significantly suffer due to irresponsible parents. We can't do anything about the idiots who teach idiocy to their children. That is one of the ugly costs of freedom.

But we can sure take the kids away from parents who abuse or neglect them or subject them to dangerous living environments or deprive them of essentials. That would seem really extreme at first to many folks now. But it wouldn't be long before it would be a rare event that it happened the way it used to be before the government decided to subsidize irresponsible parents.

Let's go back to that letter I've been posting--you know, that one the pro-government, pro-entitlement folks have been religiously ignoring?:

Letter to the Editor
Waco Tribune-Herald
November 18, 2010

Put me in charge ...

Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards;
no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags
of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you
can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women
Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test
recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos
and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke
or get tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks?
You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair.
Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be
inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and
your own place. In addition, you will either present a check stub from a
job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be
cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing,
whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires
and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the
“common good.”

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the
above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you
say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider
that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing
absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least
attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system
rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

Alfred W. Evans, Gatesville

IS there ANYTHING in that letter that somebody can make a case that it is unfair?

 

[Jarhead]

FoxFrye...

That letter is the best. A sarcastic as some may take it, it is by no menas sarcastic.
It is spot on.
Thanks for sharing.

 

[syrenn]

So you would make the babies suffer? How sweet.

Why don't we just tie tubes when they are about 8 years old. Then after your an adult, have a means of supporting yourself, you are married & responsibile and have a home, and if you want a child then and meet the financial tests, you get your tubes untied. After the birth they are tied again.

Put the blame where it belongs. The Parents are making their children suffer. Not me, not you and not the government. However when parents cannot afford the children they have THEY are making everyone suffer.

I would not suggest tying tubes of 8 year olds, that is rather ridiculous. They do have a chance to prove they are responsible. I do agree about tying tubes of women who are baby machines who cannot afford their children and expect the government to pay for them. Mistakes happen so payments should be cut off at one child. Twice is not a mistake its irresponsible.

I agree that children should not significantly suffer due to irresponsible parents. We can't do anything about the idiots who teach idiocy to their children. That is one of the ugly costs of freedom.

But we can sure take the kids away from parents who abuse or neglect them or subject them to dangerous living environments or deprive them of essentials. That would seem really extreme at first to many folks now. But it wouldn't be long before it would be a rare event that it happened the way it used to be before the government decided to subsidize irresponsible parents.

No, i don't feel the children should be taken away from the parents. That rather gives them a free ride in life and takes them off the hook for their irresponsible behavior and makes the government responsible for their children.

 

[syrenn]

Let's go back to that letter I've been posting--you know, that one the pro-government, pro-entitlement folks have been religiously ignoring?:

Letter to the Editor
Waco Tribune-Herald
November 18, 2010

Put me in charge ...

Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards;
no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags
of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you
can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women
Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test
recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos
and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke
or get tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks?
You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair.
Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be
inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and
your own place. In addition, you will either present a check stub from a
job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be
cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing,
whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires
and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the
“common good.”

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the
above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you
say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider
that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing
absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least
attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system
rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

Alfred W. Evans, Gatesville

IS there ANYTHING in that letter that somebody can make a case that it is unfair?

I sorta wish you had put this in your OP.

I agree totally with the "letter" If government took this approach we would all be a hole lot better off in life.

 

[peach174]

The question should be what drove up helath care cost?
Answer - Government Regulation and the uninsured
one example
It drove up cost for doctors with mandatory insurance for those who wanted to sue. It stopped family practioners because the cost was so high. They went in speciality practice.
It should have been done by making those's that wanted to sue pay for court costs if they lost.
2nd
FDA rules that made drugs go sky high
Point I'm making. Get Government management out of most everything and all costs of alot of things will go down.
This Health care bill is about Government control over our lives and it is written so that eventually everyone will have to get on it.
If we had more clinic's that would deal with this problem of those that don't have insurance like some states have we could deal with the millions that don't have it.
If we get the cost down all the way around, monthly premiums would go down, drug cost would go down, so on and so on
We need torte reform, keeping your Ins. if you lose your job, things of this nature.
The majority of this nation does not want this Health Ins by the dems. They see it for what it is.
Government control and costing to much, way. way to much in the future.

 

[Flopper]

Reading message boards and blogs, I have come to the conclusion that what most people believe about government assistance programs is mostly wrong.

Regardless of facts to the contrary, many believe in the myth of welfare dependency. For the most part, welfare is a transient program. Recipients don't remain on the program forever. Fewer than 20 percent of all people on welfare remain on the program for more than seven months. Another 20 percent are on welfare for one to two years. Still, 27 percent remain on welfare for two to five years. Of all welfare recipients, 20 percent remain on welfare more than five years. The most of those on welfare for more than two years are unemployable due to mental or physical disabilities.

Those on welfare are lazy and won't work. This is another misconception. A large percent of those on welfare have jobs but they do not provide enough money to live on. 50% of those on welfare are unemployable due age, physical, or mental disabilities.

1 in 7 Americans use food stamps. Most families that use food stamps have at least one working member of the household. Military families are a big user of food stamps. 31 million dollars in food stamps are used in military commissaries nationwide each year.

To significantly reduce the cost of government social assistance programs we must increase the number jobs available to low skilled workers. Cutting back on the assistance programs does not increase employment.

About Welfare Statistics | eHow.com
Disability, Welfare Reform, and Supplemental Security Income
Statistics show 1 in 7 Americans using food stamps

I disagree that welfare is mostly a 'transient' problem. I've worked in those programs for too many years now to believe that. The ONLY way you get a lot of folks off welfare is to just stop the welfare. That is more particularly the case when it is faceless federal or big state welfare in one-size-fits-all programs that just about anybody can qualify for if they finigle their situation or facts just a bit.

I do agree that there must be jobs for everybody who wants a job. But the only way that is accomplished is to stop draining the public sector resources by making more and more government jobs and instead putting the resources back into the private sector where jobs that grow the economy and therefore additional jobs are created.

I don't know if it is a whole new way of looking at government to believe that government cannot provide for the people as well as they will provide for themselves given the resources and opportunity to do so. But it certainly would be 'new' compared to the mindset that some have that more and bigger government programs are the answer.

No, cutting social welfare programs and entitlement programs is not a new approach to government. It's been around at least since Reagan declared government was evil and probably a lot longer. The facts on welfare speak for themselves. As long as we chase mythical problems we will not find real solutions.

 

[Foxfyre]

Put the blame where it belongs. The Parents are making their children suffer. Not me, not you and not the government. However when parents cannot afford the children they have THEY are making everyone suffer.

I would not suggest tying tubes of 8 year olds, that is rather ridiculous. They do have a chance to prove they are responsible. I do agree about tying tubes of women who are baby machines who cannot afford their children and expect the government to pay for them. Mistakes happen so payments should be cut off at one child. Twice is not a mistake its irresponsible.

I agree that children should not significantly suffer due to irresponsible parents. We can't do anything about the idiots who teach idiocy to their children. That is one of the ugly costs of freedom.

But we can sure take the kids away from parents who abuse or neglect them or subject them to dangerous living environments or deprive them of essentials. That would seem really extreme at first to many folks now. But it wouldn't be long before it would be a rare event that it happened the way it used to be before the government decided to subsidize irresponsible parents.

No, i don't feel the children should be taken away from the parents. That rather gives them a free ride in life and takes them off the hook for their irresponsible behavior and makes the government responsible for their children.

That's a good point, but there are thousands of good, responsible folks of sufficient means to provide a good life for a child who will adopt an infant in a New York minutes given opportunity to do so.

I think if these gals realize that a baby won't get them any extra benefits and, in fact, if they are not able to support a child they won't even have a baby, and they'll have to pay for their own abortion, they'll take better care not to get pregnant in the first place. No welfare and no baby for nine months of pregnancy is a pretty strong incentive to take necessary precautions I think. There are plenty of charities who will take in an indigent mother and see that she has shelter, proper nutrition, and medical care but she will be required to give up the baby for adoption.

Out of wedlock pregnancy was a rare thing before the government started subsidizing people just because they had kids they can't or won't support.

 

[Flopper]

Here's the problem folks. As much as some likes to think that government MUST provide for the 'needy', entitlement programs simply cannot be sustained. Every single one that has ever been started is starved for funds, is adding to the deficit, is growing the debt, and we simply cannot continue down that road and believe that the USA will remain a great, powerful, affluent nation.

For instance in yesterday's Albuquerque Journal--sorry I don't have a link but it was on Page A8-- the editorial was headed "Can We Talk Before Medicare Goes Boom?" According to the Urban Institute, a Baby Boomer couple earning $89,000/year will have paid $114,000 in Medicare payroll taxes when they retire this year. Then over the course of their retirement, they will receive on average $355,000 worth of Medicare benefits.

In 1940 couples reaching age 65 lived on average another 19 years. Today that has increased to 25 more years. And for Americans born today, it is closing in on 30 years.

So we're looking at folks receiving benefits three times more than what they pay in while the number of working Americans paying into the system is shrinking. In the next 20 years Meicare will cover more than 80 million of people while the ratio of workers paying taxes to support the program will plummet from the current 3.5 for each beneficiary to 2.3. That means trillions more added to the public debt - OR - huge tax increases for working Americans.

Then if you add Medicaid, Social Security, and other growing entitlements to that, it isn't difficult to see that pretty soon working Americans could pay all their earnings into the programs and it sitll won't cover it all.

And, in my opinion, it all could have been avoided by letting the private sector work it out. The private sector has never yet failed to provide a product that people could afford when there has been a need.

We need a whole new way of looking at that and a solution to fix it that begins very soon.

Medicare is in trouble for one reason and one reason only. Congress has not seen fit to match the increasing medical costs with increasing revenue. Medicare Part B premiums have been frozen for two years while costs rises and they will probably be frozen another year. Medicare payroll tax has fallen well behind the increasing cost of medical care.

The Medical Service Industry is a free market. It does not work because the customers do not evaluate the cost versus the need for the service because most of the cost is being paid by insurance, either private or government.

If the doctor diagnosis's a cancer and recommends a number of diagnostic tests, operations, rehab, radiation, chemotherapy, and a dozen drugs followed by even more tests and procedures, are you going evaluate each one to determine if the service is worth the cost? Are you going to go shopping to get the best price for each service. Of course not. You are going to do exactly what your doctor and others recommend. They are in the business of selling services. The more they sell the more they make.

We have to get away from fee for service system. The system should be a fee for results not services. There must be an effective gatekeeper. Insurance companies have proven that they cannot do it. They simply approve all procedures from qualified providers and pass all the costs on to the customer in form of higher premiums. If the current system continues, with or without Obama healthcare the system will go bust in 8 to 12 years.

 

[mdn2000]

I have to correct you, its not opinion but fact, fix that and your a 99% correct.

We also do not need a new way to fix the problem, the old way is best, let people who want to live in the USA work towards paying off the failed actions of politicians. Notice there is no R or D in politicians, politicians are human thus we suffer the failings of human nature, human nature crosses party lines.

Our problem is that the politicians have stagnated every aspect of our lives, more government solutions means more of the same, the only solution is to take away all the power and allow the economy to grow by leaps and bounds.

Thats the irony of the question of what I think Goivernment should do to stimulate the economy.

My answer is absolutely nothing.

I truly believe that is not only the answer...but the way it is supposed to be.

The present government, however, can do some very fine tuning here and there. There's an old saw: If you want something to decrease, tax it. If you want something to increase, subsidize it.

Okay there are definitely practical limitations to those two statements, but sometimes the government does need to intervene on a very limited basis. For instance, it is prudent for the government to regulate interstate commerce to prevent a large or affluent state from beating up on a smaller or less affluent one. And it is within the prerogative of the federal government to develop treaties that open international markets for U.S. products and allow us to import what we can't practically make here. Right now the U.S. does not produce all of its petroleum needs, for instance, so we do need to obtain that from other places. The federal government can open those markets so that we can import what we need.

The federal government can also endorse laws and regulations that make it possible for Americans to exploit more of our own oil resources too.

It makes NO sense whatsoever to ban U.S. production when we are environmentally conscious and believe in conducting business responsibly and ethically and then purchase our oil from places that are not environmentally conscious, responsible, or ethical.

Yet it was corporations that opened the doors in the past, or better stated it was capitalism. The Federal Government can best open doors by getting out of the way, the private sector and the motive for profit through capitalism is better at opening a door than any law could possibly be.

The government can eliminate laws and tax so that the I the individual can keep my private property and pursue my happiness as I determine. There are over a thousand bills passed by congress concerning energy, passed by the last congress. How is the government working as indicated at the gas pump.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let's go back to that letter I've been posting--you know, that one the pro-government, pro-entitlement folks have been religiously ignoring?:

Letter to the Editor
Waco Tribune-Herald
November 18, 2010

Put me in charge ...

Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards;
no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags
of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you
can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women
Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test
recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos
and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke
or get tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks?
You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair.
Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be
inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and
your own place. In addition, you will either present a check stub from a
job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be
cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing,
whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires
and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the
“common good.”

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the
above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you
say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider
that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing
absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least
attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system
rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

Alfred W. Evans, Gatesville

IS there ANYTHING in that letter that somebody can make a case that it is unfair?

I sorta wish you had put this in your OP.

I agree totally with the "letter" If government took this approach we would all be a hole lot better off in life.

Hmmm, how about a slippery slope argument (one favored by many on the right).
Once the freedom and liberty of any person is surrendered to the state, the state will eventually exercise its authority over all citizens. For all cirtizens enjoy the benefits provided by the government, beginning with their approval, tacit or coerced by calling for help (dialing 911), enjoying freedom of movement and roads.
By accepting any of these and many many other freedoms, the state will acknowledge their authority to protect its citizens from those who abuse this freedom. First, those who dissent and criticize the government first and then others.

 

[Foxfyre]

Reading message boards and blogs, I have come to the conclusion that what most people believe about government assistance programs is mostly wrong.

Regardless of facts to the contrary, many believe in the myth of welfare dependency. For the most part, welfare is a transient program. Recipients don't remain on the program forever. Fewer than 20 percent of all people on welfare remain on the program for more than seven months. Another 20 percent are on welfare for one to two years. Still, 27 percent remain on welfare for two to five years. Of all welfare recipients, 20 percent remain on welfare more than five years. The most of those on welfare for more than two years are unemployable due to mental or physical disabilities.

Those on welfare are lazy and won't work. This is another misconception. A large percent of those on welfare have jobs but they do not provide enough money to live on. 50% of those on welfare are unemployable due age, physical, or mental disabilities.

1 in 7 Americans use food stamps. Most families that use food stamps have at least one working member of the household. Military families are a big user of food stamps. 31 million dollars in food stamps are used in military commissaries nationwide each year.

To significantly reduce the cost of government social assistance programs we must increase the number jobs available to low skilled workers. Cutting back on the assistance programs does not increase employment.

About Welfare Statistics | eHow.com
Disability, Welfare Reform, and Supplemental Security Income
Statistics show 1 in 7 Americans using food stamps

I disagree that welfare is mostly a 'transient' problem. I've worked in those programs for too many years now to believe that. The ONLY way you get a lot of folks off welfare is to just stop the welfare. That is more particularly the case when it is faceless federal or big state welfare in one-size-fits-all programs that just about anybody can qualify for if they finigle their situation or facts just a bit.

I do agree that there must be jobs for everybody who wants a job. But the only way that is accomplished is to stop draining the public sector resources by making more and more government jobs and instead putting the resources back into the private sector where jobs that grow the economy and therefore additional jobs are created.

I don't know if it is a whole new way of looking at government to believe that government cannot provide for the people as well as they will provide for themselves given the resources and opportunity to do so. But it certainly would be 'new' compared to the mindset that some have that more and bigger government programs are the answer.

No, cutting social welfare programs and entitlement programs is not a new approach to government. It's been around at least since Reagan declared government was evil and probably a lot longer. The facts on welfare speak for themselves. As long as we chase mythical problems we will not find real solutions.

But Reagan didn't cut anything did he. He simply refused to agree to sign appropriations bills that increased social spending as much as the Democrats wanted to increase it and then capitulated by signing bills somewhere between his proposed budget and theirs. Social spending in EVERY category went up under Reagan every single year just as it did with President Bush 41 and President Clinton and President Bush 43.

And then you go on to say in a subsequent post:

Medicare is in trouble for one reason and one reason only. Congress has not seen fit to match the increasing medical costs with increasing revenue. Medicare Part B premiums have been frozen for two years while costs rises and they will probably be frozen another year. Medicare payroll tax has fallen well behind the increasing cost of medical care.

You see, this is the OLD way of thinking about government. The only solution is not either borrowing what we don't cover in medicare costs or raising taxes to cover those costs. The better way is to look at how unreasonable those costs are or why they are unreasonable.

A different way of looking at government is that government has been most of the problem in those rising costs. Once government starts dickering around with the supply and demand of any product, you get artificially produced results, usually not in a good way. Good intentions invaribly produce unintended negative consequences. When Medicare went into effect in the 1960's, Congress and President Johnson promised a certain cost level for the program. But within a few short decades, that cost had been exceeded by hundreds of percent.

You can see that in prior decades, U.S. medical costs rocked along pretty steadily with the rate of inflation. From day one that Medicare and Medicaid went into effect, the costs started rising and have accelerated.

When Social Security went into effect, the people were guaranteed that we would never be taxed more than 1% of our income to support the program. We now pay 13.3% tax for social security and medicare thanks to an Obama tax reduction for 2011. Last year we paid more than 15% with additional federal and state taxes calculated to cover some of the Medicaid costs. And both programs are running on empty and will cost the people hundreds of billions more if something isn't done soon.

So it is with ALL entitlement programs.

A different way of looking a government these days is to realize that the private sector is the ONLY way to go if we want top quality at an affordable cost. The private sector always delivers what the people want and are willing or able to pay for. Government has proved that it can't.

 

[mdn2000]

Let's go back to that letter I've been posting--you know, that one the pro-government, pro-entitlement folks have been religiously ignoring?:



IS there ANYTHING in that letter that somebody can make a case that it is unfair?

I sorta wish you had put this in your OP.

I agree totally with the "letter" If government took this approach we would all be a hole lot better off in life.

Hmmm, how about a slippery slope argument (one favored by many on the right).
Once the freedom and liberty of any person is surrendered to the state, the state will eventually exercise its authority over all citizens. For all cirtizens enjoy the benefits provided by the government, beginning with their approval, tacit or coerced by calling for help (dialing 911), enjoying freedom of movement and roads.
By accepting any of these and many many other freedoms, the state will acknowledge their authority to protect its citizens from those who abuse this freedom. First, those who dissent and criticize the government first and then others.

By accepting freedom the state has authority over my private property?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I disagree that welfare is mostly a 'transient' problem. I've worked in those programs for too many years now to believe that. The ONLY way you get a lot of folks off welfare is to just stop the welfare. That is more particularly the case when it is faceless federal or big state welfare in one-size-fits-all programs that just about anybody can qualify for if they finigle their situation or facts just a bit.

I do agree that there must be jobs for everybody who wants a job. But the only way that is accomplished is to stop draining the public sector resources by making more and more government jobs and instead putting the resources back into the private sector where jobs that grow the economy and therefore additional jobs are created.

I don't know if it is a whole new way of looking at government to believe that government cannot provide for the people as well as they will provide for themselves given the resources and opportunity to do so. But it certainly would be 'new' compared to the mindset that some have that more and bigger government programs are the answer.

No, cutting social welfare programs and entitlement programs is not a new approach to government. It's been around at least since Reagan declared government was evil and probably a lot longer. The facts on welfare speak for themselves. As long as we chase mythical problems we will not find real solutions.

But Reagan didn't cut anything did he. He simply refused to agree to sign appropriations bills that increased social spending as much as the Democrats wanted to increase it and then capitulated by signing bills somewhere between his proposed budget and theirs. Social spending in EVERY category went up under Reagan every single year just as it did with President Bush 41 and President Clinton and President Bush 43.

And then you go on to say in a subsequent post:

Medicare is in trouble for one reason and one reason only. Congress has not seen fit to match the increasing medical costs with increasing revenue. Medicare Part B premiums have been frozen for two years while costs rises and they will probably be frozen another year. Medicare payroll tax has fallen well behind the increasing cost of medical care.

You see, this is the OLD way of thinking about government. The only solution is not either borrowing what we don't cover in medicare costs or raising taxes to cover those costs. The better way is to look at how unreasonable those costs are or why they are unreasonable.

A different way of looking at government is that government has been most of the problem in those rising costs. Once government starts dickering around with the supply and demand of any product, you get artificially produced results, usually not in a good way. Good intentions invaribly produce unintended negative consequences. When Medicare went into effect in the 1960's, Congress and President Johnson promised a certain cost level for the program. But within a few short decades, that cost had been exceeded by hundreds of percent.

You can see that in prior decades, U.S. medical costs rocked along pretty steadily with the rate of inflation. From day one that Medicare and Medicaid went into effect, the costs started rising and have accelerated.

When Social Security went into effect, the people were guaranteed that we would never be taxed more than 1% of our income to support the program. We now pay 13.3% tax for social security and medicare thanks to an Obama tax reduction for 2011. Last year we paid more than 15% with additional federal and state taxes calculated to cover some of the Medicaid costs. And both programs are running on empty and will cost the people hundreds of billions more if something isn't done soon.

So it is with ALL entitlement programs.

A different way of looking a government these days is to realize that the private sector is the ONLY way to go if we want top quality at an affordable cost. The private sector always delivers what the people want and are willing or able to pay for. Government has proved that it can't.

The private sector is interested in profit not service. Not paying claims is job number one for the entire insurance industry. Stating the "private sector is the ONLY way to go if we want top quality at an affordable cost" is a joke, isn't it?

 

[Foxfyre]

No, cutting social welfare programs and entitlement programs is not a new approach to government. It's been around at least since Reagan declared government was evil and probably a lot longer. The facts on welfare speak for themselves. As long as we chase mythical problems we will not find real solutions.

But Reagan didn't cut anything did he. He simply refused to agree to sign appropriations bills that increased social spending as much as the Democrats wanted to increase it and then capitulated by signing bills somewhere between his proposed budget and theirs. Social spending in EVERY category went up under Reagan every single year just as it did with President Bush 41 and President Clinton and President Bush 43.

And then you go on to say in a subsequent post:

Medicare is in trouble for one reason and one reason only. Congress has not seen fit to match the increasing medical costs with increasing revenue. Medicare Part B premiums have been frozen for two years while costs rises and they will probably be frozen another year. Medicare payroll tax has fallen well behind the increasing cost of medical care.

You see, this is the OLD way of thinking about government. The only solution is not either borrowing what we don't cover in medicare costs or raising taxes to cover those costs. The better way is to look at how unreasonable those costs are or why they are unreasonable.

A different way of looking at government is that government has been most of the problem in those rising costs. Once government starts dickering around with the supply and demand of any product, you get artificially produced results, usually not in a good way. Good intentions invaribly produce unintended negative consequences. When Medicare went into effect in the 1960's, Congress and President Johnson promised a certain cost level for the program. But within a few short decades, that cost had been exceeded by hundreds of percent.

You can see that in prior decades, U.S. medical costs rocked along pretty steadily with the rate of inflation. From day one that Medicare and Medicaid went into effect, the costs started rising and have accelerated.

When Social Security went into effect, the people were guaranteed that we would never be taxed more than 1% of our income to support the program. We now pay 13.3% tax for social security and medicare thanks to an Obama tax reduction for 2011. Last year we paid more than 15% with additional federal and state taxes calculated to cover some of the Medicaid costs. And both programs are running on empty and will cost the people hundreds of billions more if something isn't done soon.

So it is with ALL entitlement programs.

A different way of looking a government these days is to realize that the private sector is the ONLY way to go if we want top quality at an affordable cost. The private sector always delivers what the people want and are willing or able to pay for. Government has proved that it can't.

The private sector is interested in profit not service. Not paying claims is job number one for the entire insurance industry. Stating the "private sector is the ONLY way to go if we want top quality at an affordable cost" is a joke, isn't it?

If the private sector's profit depends on delivering a service people want and are able and willing to pay for, the private sector becomes very interested in delivering that service. What other incentive is there for people to deliver products and services if not for profits? We should celebrate profit that encourages commerce and industry to deliver to us the most excellent and attractive and affordable products and services as that has produced one of the highest standards of living in the world.

As Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations , ""It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest." Were it not for their skill and ability to deliver a product and services people want and are willing and able to pay for, they would not provide the product and services. And they must manage supply and demand and costs efficiently or they are unable to provide products and services. And they won't do it for long without adequate compensation for their labor.

Government, however, for many decades now hasn't had to show a profit or even a balanced ledger; therefore it hasn't cared about cost or efficiency or effectiveness. It blames the other guy for its failures, and just borrows or prints more money to cover costs it can't cover and it doesn't have to BE effective but simply convince enough people to "vote for me" and you'll get yours. Government has had no incentive to be cost conscious, effective, or efficient as it has the power to borrow as much as it wants, print as much money as it wants, tax as much as it wants, or promise whatever it thinks the people will believe.

So we need a whole new way of thinking about government in order to get the products and services that we want and need.

And if we think long and hard enough, most people should realize that the private sector does a better job of deivering products and services, including healthcare, at a price we can afford, than the government will ever do.

 

[Flopper]

The question should be what drove up helath care cost?
Answer - Government Regulation and the uninsured
one example
It drove up cost for doctors with mandatory insurance for those who wanted to sue. It stopped family practioners because the cost was so high. They went in speciality practice.
It should have been done by making those's that wanted to sue pay for court costs if they lost.
2nd
FDA rules that made drugs go sky high
Point I'm making. Get Government management out of most everything and all costs of alot of things will go down.
This Health care bill is about Government control over our lives and it is written so that eventually everyone will have to get on it.
If we had more clinic's that would deal with this problem of those that don't have insurance like some states have we could deal with the millions that don't have it.
If we get the cost down all the way around, monthly premiums would go down, drug cost would go down, so on and so on
We need torte reform, keeping your Ins. if you lose your job, things of this nature.
The majority of this nation does not want this Health Ins by the dems. They see it for what it is.
Government control and costing to much, way. way to much in the future.

Healthcare cost are rising for a lot of reasons. Government regulations contribute to the cost increase but it's not a major factor. Tort reform which the Republicans push as a solution to rising healthcare cost would reduces the costs by only .2%. This figure comes from studies of states that have implemented tort reform laws.

The major reasons for rising medical costs are:
1. Health care payments are fee for service. You go to healthcare providers who sells you services, blood tests, diagnostic tests, medical procedures, rehab, and prescriptions. The more services they sell, the more they make. Patients are rarely qualified to evaluate the cost versus the benefit of the services also since the patients insurance, private or government pays for most of the costs, they have little incentive to shop for the less expensive providers.

Insurance, private and government pay most of the medical costs. Their approach to controlling cost is not to deny payment for unnecessary services but rather to limit the payment for services. Healthcare providers respond by performing more services. The more services they can provide the more they make.

The solution to the problem is to abandon fee for service and adopt fee for results. In healthcare we don't pay people to fix problems, we pay for their effort. You take your car to a mechanic and he tells you that you need a new transmission and it will cost you $5,000. You say ok. He installs the new transmission, gives you a bill for $5,000, and a car that doesn't run. Do you pay the bill? Of course not. However when it come to healthcare, we spend billions of dollars for useless services that do not produce satisfactory results.

Of course we can not refuse to pay the doctor if he doesn't make us well. However, what can be done is set reimbursement rates based on a record of successes. For example, procedures that have high rates of success are paid higher reimbursement rates. Hospitals that get better results are reimbursed higher than those that don't. Also doctors can be paid an incentive fee for keeping their patients healthy. In other words payments have to be based on results not effort.

2. One fourth of all medical tests are lost. This cost us billions of dollars. We must have an online national database of medical information so primary care doctors, specialist, and hospitals have access to previous test as well as medical history. If medical professionals do not have this information they rerun tests and procedures. The lack of timely sharing of medical information is not only a major cost factor but seriously compromises healthcare outcomes.

3. The rising healthcare costs have pushed premiums so high that millions of people can no longer afford healthcare coverage. As the premiums rise, the number of policy holders declines pushing premiums even higher. The result is 50 million people can no longer afford healthcare coverage. For those people low cost preventive services are often denied leading to serious healthcare problems that are treated through emergency rooms and hospitals, one of the most expensive ways to delivery healthcare. Most of these bills are not paid pushing hospital costs higher. The solution is universal coverage. Everyone should be required to carry health insurance.

The Obama healthcare bill does little to control costs. It provides a lot of needed changes to the system but cost control is not one of them. Most of the cost control was lost when the single payers system was abandon. The Republican plan as it stands repeals the current law without providing any solutions to the problem.

 

[Flopper]

Government, however, for many decades now hasn't had to show a profit or even a balanced ledger; therefore it hasn't cared about cost or efficiency or effectiveness.

Our government can not have a profit. A surplus, yes but a profit, no.

I have worked for both state and federal government as well as contractors selling to government agencies. Is there waste? Yes, of course there is. The government has a lot of requirements concerning spending tax payer money. Unlike private business they can not shortcut procedures which can make them less efficient. But from the people I have worked with, I have not seen gross inefficiency. The government workers were just as qualified and hard working as the contractors and in many cases more so.

Because someone is not interested in making a fortune or becoming president of the company does not mean they have no interest in doing a good job. I think far too many people assume that the only people that do good work are those that aspire to great financial success. This is just plain nonsense. Some government agencies and programs run very efficiently and deliver great services. We need to cut government cost but not with a sickle but rather with a scalpel.