# Iraq - $5,000 per Second



## Toro (Mar 23, 2008)

Much of this has been covered before.  I've never thought of the spending in such stark terms, however.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/opinion/23kristof.html?ref=opinion


----------



## jreeves (Mar 23, 2008)

Toro said:


> Much of this has been covered before.  I've never thought of the spending in such stark terms, however.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/opinion/23kristof.html?ref=opinion



What would be interesting, is to see the breakdown of social spending per second. Considering it is about two to one in the amount spent in a fiscal budget.


----------



## Warner (Mar 27, 2008)

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.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 27, 2008)

Warner said:


> 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?)
> 
> ...



Weak.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 27, 2008)

Warner said:


> 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?)
> 
> ...



You are aware the Government takes all SS payments and spends them EVERY year on other things? The great fix in the 80's was twisted into a new source of money to spend by the Congress. All that is in the coffers each year are IOU's from the same Congress that spends the money.

There would be NO threat to SS at all if in fact the taxes we pay were only used for SS purposes and the rest invested for future need.

Military pensions are not social spending, that is payments made for employees of the Government that have retired. Just as Federal retirees get their pensions and that also is not "social" spending. Both of those payments are legal and authorized in the powers the Constitution grants to the Government. SS is illegal and unconstitutional. And it is stolen as fast as it is paid in.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 27, 2008)

Warner said:


> 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?)
> 
> ...



680 billion dollars for the Dept. of Health and Human Services is pratically nothing oh ok....

Democrats would like you to believe that Soical Security is paid strictly by recipients but it's not. Hello, have you ever heard of inflation? What percent of return do you get by paying money to the government? Plus on top of that, the theives have stolen 1.8 trillion dollars from your sacred Social Security trust fund and gave us IOU's. Yep no social spending going on in this country. 

Medicare, have you noticed that the price of health care has been going through the roof in this country? How does that translate, say my dad put in 50 dollars a month when he was working do you actually expect that to cover his medical expenses today?


----------



## Warner (Mar 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are aware the Government takes all SS payments and spends them EVERY year on other things? The great fix in the 80's was twisted into a new source of money to spend by the Congress. All that is in the coffers each year are IOU's from the same Congress that spends the money.
> 
> There would be NO threat to SS at all if in fact the taxes we pay were only used for SS purposes and the rest invested for future need.



Well of course.  [playing devil's advocate] But the argument could be made that this is done to free up money to be spent on other things... such as the military.



RetiredGySgt said:


> Military pensions are not social spending, that is payments made for employees of the Government that have retired. Just as Federal retirees get their pensions and that also is not "social" spending. Both of those payments are legal and authorized in the powers the Constitution grants to the Government. SS is illegal and unconstitutional. And it is stolen as fast as it is paid in.



Agreed.  But the issue is the fact that these items fall under the "Entitlements" section of the Fed. budget, and thus are confused with Welfare type spending.  When you remove these items from the Entitlements allocation, what is left is rather... small.  People like Jreeves are easily confused by the ultra right wing talking head loons on Fox News and the radio concerning the extent of Federal welfare spending.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 28, 2008)

Warner said:


> Well of course.  [playing devil's advocate] But the argument could be made that this is done to free up money to be spent on other things... such as the military.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  But the issue is the fact that these items fall under the "Entitlements" section of the Fed. budget, and thus are confused with Welfare type spending.  When you remove these items from the Entitlements allocation, what is left is rather... small.  People like Jreeves are easily confused by the ultra right wing talking head loons on Fox News and the radio concerning the extent of Federal welfare spending.



You could seem to try and pay attention, *680 Billion dollars*for Dept. of Health and Human Services is not entitlement spending. Also entitlements is social spending, I can fund my own fucking retirement I don't need the government stealing my money. I guess if someone stole your bank card and wiped out your savings account, they would just be freeing up your money for other things. I think for myself, I don't need ultra labels you throw out to distract attention away from socialistic programs.


----------



## Warner (Mar 28, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 680 billion dollars for the Dept. of Health and Human Services is pratically nothing oh ok....



Didn't say that.  The real figure is $664.6 billion (as of the fiscal years ending on Sept. 30th).  Here's the breakdown:


```
US Department of Health and Human Services

For the Years Ended September 30, 2007 and 2006 (In Millions)

Responsibility Segments                                  2007          2006
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)    
     Gross Cost                                       $612,411      $574,245
     Exchange Revenue                                  (50,304)      (49,847)
          CMS Net Cost of Operations                   562,107       524,398
     
Other Segments:    
Administration for Children & Families (ACF)          $47,336        $47,123
Administration on Aging (AoA)                           1,373          1,388
Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ)           131             15
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)          8,105          6,555
Food & Drug Administration (FDA)                        1,913          1,906
Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA)       6,897          6,205
Indian Health Service (IHS)                             4,250          4,093
National Institutes of Health (NIH)                    28,489         28,147
Office of the Secretary (OS)                            2,169          2,598
Program Support Center (PSC)                            1,414            872
Subst. Abuse & Mental Hlth Services Admin.(SAMHSA)      3,320          3,343
Other Segments Gross Cost of Operations               105,397        102,245
Exchange Revenue                                       (2,905)        (2,706)
Other Segments Net Cost of Operations                 102,492         99,539
     
Net Cost of Operations                               $664,599       $623,937
```
 from HSS Budget Summary

Of the gross costs of Medicare/Medicate it breaks down like this: $41.6 billion was spent on Medicare (including: Medicare itself plus the Medicare Prescription Drug program - $3.7B, Retiree Prescription Drug program - $2.9B, Medicare for undocumented aliens - $ 0.16B, SCHIP - $0.29B), and $19.4 billion was spent on Medicaid, $0.74 billion on Katrina relief waivers, and another $0.45 billion on misc. items.

Here's a pie-chart to make it easier to visualize:








There is also approx. $8.3 billion in Federal Employee and Veterans benefits which are not covered by budgetary resources, 

```
ACF fy2006 BUDGET SUMMARY
PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR FOSTER CARE & ADOPTION ASSISTANCE:
Foster Care................................................  4,475,000,000
Independent Living.........................................    140,000,000
Adoption Assistance........................................  2,027,000,000
Total, Foster Care and Adoption Assistance, B.A............  6,642,000,000

SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT
B.A........................................................  1,700,000,000

PROMOTING SAFE & STABLE FAMILIES
B.A........................................................    345,000,000
State Court Improvement Program Pre-Appropriated in
Reconciliation Bill........................................     20,000,000
Total, Promoting Safe and Stable Families, Program Level...    365,000,000
Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF):
State Family Assistance Grant.............................. 16,488,667,000
Territories -- Family Assistance Grants....................     77,875,000
Matching Grants to Territories.............................     15,000,000
Supplemental Grants for Population Increases...............    319,450,000
Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood ...............    150,000,000
Contingency Fund, Balances Forward......................... [1,792,915,000]
Tribal Works Programs 7,633,000 7,633,000 7,633,000
Total, TANF, B.A........................................... 17,058,625,000

CHILDREN'S RESEARCH & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE:
Training & Technical Assistance............................     12,318,000
Federal Parent Locator Service.............................     24,635,000
Child Welfare Study........................................      6,000,000
Welfare Research...........................................     15,000,000
Total, Children's Research & Technical Assistance, B.A.....     57,953,000

CHILD CARE ENTITLEMENT
Mandatory..................................................  1,177,524,781
Matching...................................................  1,673,842,719
Training & Technical Assistance............................      7,292,500
Tribal Mandatory Funds.....................................     58,340,000
Total, Child Care Entitlement, B.A.........................  2,917,000,000

TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS, B.A......................... 13,838,668,107

TOTAL, MANDATORY PROGRAMS, B.A 2/.......................... 33,189,682,000

TOTAL, B.A................................................. 47,028,350,107

PHS EVALUATION FUNDS, PROGRAM LEVEL........................     10,500,000

TOTAL, PROGRAM LEVEL....................................... 47,038,850,107
```
(compiled from the ACF website)

The Federal Budget for 2007 was $2,798 billion.  Even if we consider the entire ACF budget to be unneeded welfare, it only amounts to about 1.6% of the Federal budget. Adding in _unnecessary_ programs such as the substance abuse program, Indian Health services, the AoA, and of course Medicaid, we come up with a total of about $76 billion of _expendable_ programs, we reach a wopping 2.7% of the Federal Budget!

Is 2.7% really significant enough for all the belly aching about the US Welfare State you keep harping on?



			
				jreeves said:
			
		

> Democrats would like you...



First of all, I am no Democrat.  That is laughable. Please understand I'll argue either side of an issue like this.  I believe the reasonable position lies somewhere in the middle, not to the far right or far left of such topics.  To reach that point of reasonability both sides must be well argued.  If I were arguing your side, it would not be that too much is spent on social programs but rather that the quality and effectiveness of those programs leaves much to be desired.

I'm a confirmed Independent - I think both parties are full of shit!



			
				jreeves said:
			
		

> ... to believe that Soical Security is paid strictly by recipients but it's not. Hello, have you ever heard of inflation? What percent of return do you get by paying money to the government? Plus on top of that, the theives have stolen 1.8 trillion dollars from your sacred Social Security trust fund and gave us IOU's. Yep no social spending going on in this country.



You're inflation argument is bunk.  If the SS fund were properly managed it would earn interest and, assuming the US economy is reasonably healthy (which has generally been the case for the last 50+ years), it would earn at least a little more than the rate of inflation.  This was how the program was supposed to work.  The problem is that the coverage provided by SS has been expanded over the years without appropriate increases in the payments and the cut-off income level ($97,500 for 2007) is too low (personally I think there should be no cut-off and then the rate could be lowered from 12.8% to something more reasonable, between 5-8%).  If you're going to expand the coverage (such as to orphans and disabled) you need to increase the premium right?

As to the mis-spending of the SS trust fund, who's to blame for that?  It seems to me the worst offenders have been.... THE REPUBICANS!  (Couldn't resist - to be sure the Democrats are also guilty - which is part of why I think both parties are shit).

When you raid the SS trust fund this frees up money in the budget to be spent elsewhere.  Where has it been spent?  It's been spent on Corporate, Bank, and S&L bail-outs, various forms of Corporate welfare.  And of course, when other programs are so funded, it makes it easier to spend on the Miltary right? (not saying we should not spend on the military, just that this does make it easier).

Consider the S&L bailout of 1990, which is now estimated to have topped the $200 billion mark (we pay about $35 billion a year to service this debt) and is expected to run over $325-500 billion when it is finally paid off and of course until all debt is paid off this really has to be considered a continuing liability (since other debt was not satisfied in order to satisfy this debt).  This bailout alone amounts to half of the "Welfare" figure you keep griping about - and this was all to keep greedy largely upper income investors from suffering a loss.

Now we are looking at another bailout, something on the order of $60-80 billion according to the White House, and more likely $200-300 billion or more according to most economists and God knows how much the long term cost will really be (a trillion $ ?).  What is this but welfare for the rich?  Who is being helped?  The rich!  Only those with investments in these banks exceeding $100,000 (the FDIC limit) stand to loose.  Generally speaking, people with incomes of less than $500,000/yr do not have such investments.  These investors took the risk and were all to happy to receive the high interest rate returns, but now that their principal is at risk they need to be bailed out (again)?  Notice that while Bush is up for bailing out the Banks he is not up for bailing out the home buyers (mostly lower income people who foolishly took bad loans they didn't understand).

It will be another 13 or so years to pay off the S&L debt.  Adding in this latest mortgage bailout, the total yearly cost will about equal the "welfare" figures I gave before.  And this is just two such bailouts for the rich, there are plenty more to be added into the figures.

Before we end welfare for the poor, lets end it for the rich okay?  I don't need it - I invest my money carefully.  If I got greedy and put my money on a high risk investment and it went bad I'd expect to loose my money.



			
				jreeves said:
			
		

> Medicare, have you noticed that the price of health care has been going through the roof in this country? How does that translate, say my dad put in 50 dollars a month when he was working do you actually expect that to cover his medical expenses today?



Well, this is all according to the Nixon plan.  Read the transcripts or listen to the tapes yourself.  The American health care is doing exactly what its REPUBLICAN instigator intended - maximizing profits for the stockholders while minimizing the provided healthcare.

What we need is to re-vamp how medical care is provided in this country.  I'd like to see a limited form of socialized medicine introduced to provide basic care.  To make this work the government should offer merit based med-school loans, and require the recipient doctors to pay these off by providing some number of years of service (let's say 8) working at a reasonable figure (based upon the median income).

What we need to realize is that well over 90% of the typical persons health care expenses occur within the last year of life.  We need to stop trying to so hard to save the old from the inevitable and accept that when you get old and your health is poor when you have a heart attack or get cancer you probably die.  I'm not saying no efforts should be made but there should be a reasonable cut off - if you want more extraordinary efforts to be made to keep you alive another 6 months when you're 80 you should have to provide for that yourself!  The problem is that the doctors and hospitals act like vultures, allowing people to run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses for things like bi-pass surgery after a 75 year old man has a heart attack when they know the odds of  2 years survival are minimal, and most likely the patient will have a horrible quality of life during that time.  But this is really a topic for another discussion...

One thing is abundantly clear.  The "(Social) Welfare is dragging this countries economy down" argument is bunk.  In reality, if we were to make the cuts listed above, the results would be pestilence, crime, and general social decay which would far exceed the miniscule savings in the overall budget.  Certainly this money could be spent more effectively, but the argument that we are spending too much on "social welfare" is just ignorant.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Mar 30, 2008)

jreeves said:


> What would be interesting, is to see the breakdown of social spending per second. Considering it is about two to one in the amount spent in a fiscal budget.



I take it you want to cut public spending on americans, and keep spending more and more on iraqis. 

Good luck with that.


----------



## Paulie (Mar 30, 2008)

Warner said:


> Didn't say that.  The real figure is $664.6 billion (as of the fiscal years ending on Sept. 30th).  Here's the breakdown:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



jreeves you just got your ass handed to you right here.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 30, 2008)

Warner said:


> Didn't say that.  The real figure is $664.6 billion (as of the fiscal years ending on Sept. 30th).  Here's the breakdown:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



This letter responds to your inquiry regarding the state of Americas entitlement
programs and the effect of the future growth of those programs on the economy.
In fiscal year 2007, spending by the federal government will amount to $2.7 trillion,
or one-fifth of the nations economic output, the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) projects. The three major federal entitlement programs------Medicare,
Medicaid, and Social Security------will account for about 45 percent of those outlays,
or about 9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). If policymakers leave current
laws unchanged, federal outlays will claim a sharply increasing share of the nations
output over coming decades, driven primarily by growth in the health-related
entitlement programs.1
Many observers have noted that the aging of the population increases spending in
all three major entitlement programs. Today, for every person age 65 or older,
there are five people 20 to 64 years old. That figure is projected to fall to below
three by 2030. Even after the retirement of the baby-boom generation, the
population will continue to age, demographers project, as life expectancy
continues to increase and fertility rates remain low by historical standards.
The aging of the population is not the primary factor affecting the growth of
entitlement programs, however. Instead, the most important cause is the projected
increase in health care costs. Federal health spending, mostly in the Medicare and
Medicaid programs, has been consuming a growing share of the nations
economic output for several decades. Costs per beneficiary, even after adjusting
for changes in the population, have, on average, increased about 2.5 percentage
points faster than has average per capita GDP.2 The rate of growth in health costs
is unusually difficult to project, but even if growth falls well below historical
levels, spending on Medicare and Medicaid will continue to grow faster than the
economy and faster than other major government programs.
1. See Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008
to 2017 (January 2007) and The Long-Term Budget Outlook (December 2005).
2. See The Growth of Health Care Costs, Box 1-3 in CBOs The Long-Term Budget
Outlook.

Those projections, and particularly those for the health programs, raise fundamental
questions of economic sustainability.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7851/03-08-Long-Term Spending.pdf
The CBO tends to disagree with you, entitlement spending could bring down this country into bankruptcy.

As far as inflation and Soical Security;
For instance, federal law mandates that Social Security checks increase thanks to "cost-of-living adjustments," or COLAs, that are supposed to compensate for inflation.

So, higher inflation numbers cost the federal government millions more in increased Social Security payments.

But when the Bureau of Labor Statistics intentionally rigs the Consumer Price Index calculations to low-ball the inflation rate, Social Security entitlement payments are kept level.

As a result, retirees quietly lose billions of dollars that should have been paid out, had the cost of living numbers been reported honestly. But the government saves the expense.

How does the federal government manipulate inflation numbers?

The Consumer Price Index, or CPI, is the central statistic the federal government uses to calculate inflation.

The CPI is a complex government statistic that was introduced in the 1920s to track the market cost of a "basket of goods and services."

Beginning during the Carter administration, federal economists cleverly redefined the CPI, with the goal of removing from the index expensive items, including food and energy, that would push the CPI higher.

Today, the Federal Reserve when setting interest rates focuses on a variation of the CPI that measures "core inflation."

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59409

Your depiction that we should just let the old die and start saving those billions of dollars is Kevorkian at best. So let me get this right we should institute huge social network for everybody and effect everyone's quality of healthcare? That is insane. Let the old people who have paid taxes including medicare taxes all their life die, without trying to prolong their lives.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 30, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> I take it you want to cut public spending on americans, and keep spending more and more on iraqis.
> 
> Good luck with that.



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


----------



## jreeves (Mar 30, 2008)

Warner said:


> Didn't say that.  The real figure is $664.6 billion (as of the fiscal years ending on Sept. 30th).  Here's the breakdown:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...





Paulitics said:


> jreeves you just got your ass handed to you right here.



I don't believe I did, over half of his post was personal opinion and the remaining was cherry picked information.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 30, 2008)

jreeves said:


> This letter responds to your inquiry regarding the state of Americas entitlement
> programs and the effect of the future growth of those programs on the economy.
> In fiscal year 2007, spending by the federal government will amount to $2.7 trillion,
> or one-fifth of the nations economic output, the Congressional Budget Office
> ...



As far as welfare spending in this country its important to not only look to the federal level but also at the state level. Also it's important to look at the complexity of social programs in America it's not only contained in a single governmental department.

The U.S. welfare system may be defined as the total set of government programsfederal and statethat are designed explicitly to assist poor and low-income Americans.

Nearly all welfare programs are individually means-tested.1 Means-tested programs restrict eligibility for benefits to persons with non-welfare income below a certain level. Individuals with non-welfare income above a specified cutoff level may not receive aid. Thus, Food Stamp and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) benefits are means-tested and constitute welfare, but Social Security benefits are not.

The current welfare system is highly complex, involving six departments: HHS, Agriculture, HUD, Labor, Treasury, and Education. It is not unusual for a single poor family to receive benefits from four different departments through as many as six or seven overlapping programs. For example, a family might simultaneously receive benefits from: TANF, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Public Housing, WIC, Head Start, and the Social Service Block Grant. It is therefore important to examine welfare holistically. Examination of a single program or department in isolation is invariably misleading.
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.)

Welfare spending is so large it is difficult to comprehend. On average, the annual cost of the welfare system amounts to around $5,600 in taxes from each household that paid federal income tax in 2000. Adjusting for inflation, the amount taxpayers now spend on welfare each year is greater than the value of the entire U.S. Gross National Product at the beginning of the 20th century.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 30, 2008)

> Didn't say that. The real figure is $664.6 billion (as of the fiscal years ending on Sept. 30th). Here's the breakdown:





> The Federal Budget for 2007 was $2,798 billion. Even if we consider the entire ACF budget to be unneeded welfare, it only amounts to about 1.6% of the Federal budget. Adding in unnecessary programs such as the substance abuse program, Indian Health services, the AoA, and of course Medicaid, we come up with a total of about $76 billion of expendable programs, we reach a wopping 2.7% of the Federal Budget!
> 
> Is 2.7% really significant enough for all the belly aching about the US Welfare State you keep harping on?



664.6 of 2,798 is hardly equal to 2.7 percent. What part of social security and medicare are NOT constitutional don't you get? What part of they are social programs don't you understand?

And your numbers are leaving something out since the percentage is over 40 percent not under 30.


----------



## Warner (Mar 31, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I don't believe I did, over half of his post was personal opinion and the remaining was cherry picked information.



That's BS.  Some of my post was personal opinion, but there was no "cherry picked" information.  I spent a couple of hours and hunted down the details of the HSS budget.  I then discussed what could and could not be considered tax payer "welfare" type projects - after all, both Medicare and SS are insurance programs where the money being paid out was paid in _outside_ the Federal Income Tax system.  The fact that politicians keep dipping into these funds is a different topic, but to date these projects do not consume tax monies.

I then went even further and took the entire HSS budget not counting Medicare and SS (since these are not paid by Fed. income taxes) and showed that even when looking at this we are still only looking at about 2.7% of the budget.

----------------------------

And as for my Kovorkian approach to care for the elderly, I'm just being realistic.  This is where by far the biggest hunk of the health care budget crisis occurs and it is the least productive.  If you were to take the time to investigate it you'd see that well over 3/4ths of the health care costs occur in the last year or so of life and that usually the recipients have no quality of life during most or all of this period.  Mostly what's happening is that heart-surgeons, radiologists, oncologists and hospitals are making a fortune.  If there truly is a shortage of health care (which under a market economy is the only explanation for the rising cost) then it is foolish to utilize what there is so inefficiently.

And I never said to "just let the elderly die", just that some realism must be applied to what extraordinary measures should be taken when the probability of a good outcome is so small.  I believe that if people want such extraordinary measures to be taken they should provide for this themselves.

---------------------------

Now Jreeves, since you've accused me of "Cherry Picking", I want you to point out where this has been done.


----------



## Warner (Mar 31, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> 664.6 of 2,798 is hardly equal to 2.7 percent. What part of social security and medicare are NOT constitutional don't you get? What part of they are social programs don't you understand?
> 
> And your numbers are leaving something out since the percentage is over 40 percent not under 30.



I left out ALL OF MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY, since these items are both paid for by payee's via Federally mandated insurance programs.

RGS,  If you're not going to read the post, please refrain from commenting.

I get your interpretation of the Constitution says that Medicare and SS are unconstitutional.  And perhaps you are right.  It can be more easily argued that the Fed. income tax system as a whole is unconstitutional.  And also that the nature and structure of the US military are also unconstitutional.  But we live in the real world and these things are facts of life and until that changes why do you insist on trying to deflect the topic at hand in some meaningless direction?


----------



## jreeves (Mar 31, 2008)

Warner said:


> That's BS.  Some of my post was personal opinion, but there was no "cherry picked" information.  I spent a couple of hours and hunted down the details of the HSS budget.  I then discussed what could and could not be considered tax payer "welfare" type projects - after all, both Medicare and SS are insurance programs where the money being paid out was paid in _outside_ the Federal Income Tax system.  The fact that politicians keep dipping into these funds is a different topic, but to date these projects do not consume tax monies.
> 
> I then went even further and took the entire HSS budget not counting Medicare and SS (since these are not paid by Fed. income taxes) and showed that even when looking at this we are still only looking at about 2.7% of the budget.
> 
> ...



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

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.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 31, 2008)

Warner said:


> That's BS.  Some of my post was personal opinion, but there was no "cherry picked" information.  I spent a couple of hours and hunted down the details of the HSS budget.  I then discussed what could and could not be considered tax payer "welfare" type projects - after all, both Medicare and SS are insurance programs where the money being paid out was paid in _outside_ the Federal Income Tax system.  The fact that politicians keep dipping into these funds is a different topic, but to date these projects do not consume tax monies.
> 
> I then went even further and took the entire HSS budget not counting Medicare and SS (since these are not paid by Fed. income taxes) and showed that even when looking at this we are still only looking at about 2.7% of the budget.
> 
> ...



As far as Medicare, it is paid in part by general income taxes. Here you go.

Funding for Medicare comes primarily from payroll tax
revenues, general revenues, and premiums paid by
beneficiaries (Figure 4).
http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-02.pdf


----------



## Warner (Mar 31, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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&#37; 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.



jreeves said:


> 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.



jreeves said:


> 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.



jreeves said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2008)

Warner said:


> 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).
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 1, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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 (Apr 1, 2008)

jillian said:


> 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 (Apr 1, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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.



jreeves said:


> 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.



jreeves said:


> 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 (Apr 3, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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 (Apr 4, 2008)

Warner said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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 (Apr 4, 2008)

Warner said:


> 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 (Apr 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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 (Apr 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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 (Apr 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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.)
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 7, 2008)

Warner said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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&#37;. 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 (Apr 8, 2008)

Warner said:


> 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._
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 8, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 8, 2008)

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 (Apr 9, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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
> ...



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 (Apr 9, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> 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 (Apr 9, 2008)

Warner said:


> 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!
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Warner (Apr 10, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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&#37; 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 (Apr 10, 2008)

Warner said:


> 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?)
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 13, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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 (Apr 14, 2008)

Warner said:


> 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!
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 14, 2008)

Warner said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2008)

Care4all said:


> 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....
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 15, 2008)

Care4all said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2008)

Care4all said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2008)

Care4all said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2008)

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 (Apr 16, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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.



jreeves said:


> 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).



jreeves said:


> 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 (Apr 16, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 16, 2008)

Warner said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 19, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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.


----------



## jreeves (Apr 20, 2008)

Warner said:


> 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.



I did, I showed where unemployment spending by the feds is minuscule. Are there any other questions to the spending, if so then ask a specific question?


----------



## Care4all (Apr 21, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I did, I showed where unemployment spending by the feds is minuscule. Are there any other questions to the spending, if so then ask a specific question?


Welfare, TANF, for the poor and indigent, is around 1-2%% of the total federal spending....?

If you include what is spent by the States also...which i believe your article did do such, then you also must include total state revenues with federal revenues to get a valid comparison number of what percentage of total state and fed revenues is spent on welfare for the poor and indigent.


----------



## jreeves (Apr 22, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Welfare, TANF, for the poor and indigent, is around 1-2%% of the total federal spending....?
> 
> If you include what is spent by the States also...which i believe your article did do such, then you also must include total state revenues with federal revenues to get a valid comparison number of what percentage of total state and fed revenues is spent on welfare for the poor and indigent.



Actually the 728 billion comes solely from federal spending.


----------



## Warner (Apr 22, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Actually the 728 billion comes solely from federal spending.



Exactly.

First you make an argument about Welfare spending, which is mostly done at the state level.  Then you quote this $728B figure which is purely federal and is not actually what you imply it to be.

You have still failed to show that this $728B is spent on welfare for the poor, or even to define what a "social program" is.


----------



## jreeves (Apr 23, 2008)

Warner said:


> Exactly.
> 
> First you make an argument about Welfare spending, which is mostly done at the state level.  Then you quote this $728B figure which is purely federal and is not actually what you imply it to be.
> 
> You have still failed to show that this $728B is spent on welfare for the poor, or even to define what a "social program" is.



I gave you a means-tested spending...you just fail to acknowledge it. That's fine, I didn't really expect you to.


----------



## Warner (Apr 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I gave you a means-tested spending...you just fail to acknowledge it. That's fine, I didn't really expect you to.



I looked through the articles you linked.  I didn't see any breakdown of how that $728B figure was derived.  Maybe I missed it.  Could you please point it out?

And also please point to where in the reference material the relevant data actually is located so I'm sure not to miss it!


----------



## jreeves (Apr 24, 2008)

Warner said:


> I looked through the articles you linked.  I didn't see any breakdown of how that $728B figure was derived.  Maybe I missed it.  Could you please point it out?
> 
> And also please point to where in the reference material the relevant data actually is located so I'm sure not to miss it!




Remember this,
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.)


----------



## Warner (May 5, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Remember this,
> 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.)



Grrr.... $728B.... now $434B.... chart 1 from where????

Come on man... I don't have time to hunt through the entire history of your posts looking for "chart 1", you have to give me a link.  I'm willing to consider that you are not meaning to play games with your numbers but only if you will be strait forward with how you have derived them and from where they originate.

So far I've not been able to validate your figures...  can you stop throwing new crap at me and get down to brass tacks?


----------



## jreeves (May 9, 2008)

Warner said:


> Grrr.... $728B.... now $434B.... chart 1 from where????
> 
> Come on man... I don't have time to hunt through the entire history of your posts looking for "chart 1", you have to give me a link.  I'm willing to consider that you are not meaning to play games with your numbers but only if you will be strait forward with how you have derived them and from where they originate.
> 
> So far I've not been able to validate your figures...  can you stop throwing new crap at me and get down to brass tacks?



Grrr.....Lmao

The $434 billion is a part of the 728 billion, as well as medicare and medicaid spending, that is only the tip of the iceberg my friend. If you want to argue in circles then go right on ahead. I have posted credible evidence to prove 728 billion, I refuse to play an accomplice to your stupidity. You can claim I am throwing new crap at you, but I have made the same claim all along. The claim is that the federal government is spending itself into bankruptcy through social spending.


----------



## Warner (May 20, 2008)

Ummm... the $434B figure is from a different year than the $728B figure, so they are not the same.

Again, all I ask is provide the direct links to what your talking about.  You claim to have provided them, and I've gone back through your posts looking for them, but alas... what I've seen does not say what you say it says!

Make a point and then provide a reference (i.e. a link) to the information which you claim substantiates it.  Simple as that.

So far all you've done is post links to the top of long articles and claim they say things they do not!

I agree the Federal government is spending itself (or more appropriately our children) into bankruptcy - but I disagree as to the cause.  I have shown, using both your references and others, that in fact there is as much "social spending" to benefit the rich in this country as there is to benefit the poor, though often it's packaged differently (bank bailouts, defense contracts for things like the BFV, subsidization of ADM in the form of bio-diesel, etc...), and of course the War (which is as much about redistributing wealth as anything else).

Come on man, re-post those "links" you claim prove your arguments, and this time show where in the reference it says what you say it does!


----------



## jreeves (May 20, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 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
> ...



Obviously, you didn't look hard enough did you? Here's the breakdown of the 728 billion...how long do you plan on playing your little dog and pony show?


----------

