Bush Sends Congress $2.90T Spending Plan

[kat8585]

As usual, Butero, you are right on. I still say you should run for an office, I'd vote for you.

[forrestkc]

One of the problems is that most Americans don\'t understand how government works and how the economy works. The people mistakingly think that the government has this big pile of money to spend on them in the form of social and entitlement programs. What they don\'t understand is that all these people living off government handouts are doing so at the burden of the taxpayer.

People keep demanding more and more stuff from the government, and they are only too happy to take from we producers and give to them, the takers.

since when was social security and medicare a hand out

the last time i looked at a pay stub there was a rather substantial part of my pay check deducted for these items

one the of biggest problems facing americans is that so many of them accept everything they hear at face value

its my guess that many of the same people who believe in that big pile of money believe in santa claus and that the money for this war is hand picked off a tree in the backyard of the white house

i do not consider medicare or medicade to be a burden

it is a blessing for a whole lot of people

i thank god i have adequate insurance

but many a soldier who lost their sight or limb are dependent upon these burdensome hand outs you refer to

I am going to go out on a limb here. Social Security is a handout, whether we care to admit it or not. People pay into it and collect way beyond what they should. The benefits under the various SS schemes are far too generous and the whole SS set up is a fraud, a legalized racket that, if it existed in the private sector, would be shut down by Eliot Ness and his Untouchables. Citizens have been duped into thinking their payments go into some sort of special,magical fund that generates a whopping 2 or 3 % return, yet they miraculously believe that entitles them to, what amounts to a monthly check just shy of what they used to earn! People are either ignorant or deluded.

Medicare and Medicaid, while noble endeavors, have led to yet another corrupt agency. Why is the government in the health care provision business, anyway? Do you have a blessed clue how massive the health care budget is in America? It is embarrassing! The price tag for the war pales by comparison. The fact that you have no problem with money being spent within the country at the expense of it being spent without shows how ego centric you are. This kind of thinking--citizens demanding more and more services from the government while blinded to the evil all around them--is what contributed to the fall of every great nation in the past.

The only part of your post I agree with is how large a chunk of my income goes to fund these and other social programs. I am a minister, and therefore self employed for income tax purposes. If there are any other ministers at Worthy, I am sure they, like me, shudder every quarter as they watch ungodly amounts of their salaries go down the toilet, never to be seen again, so that other people, blissfully unaware of our existence, can live on what has been taken from us. And you too.

But, hey, it's America. And I would rather be here than anywhere else.

Medicare has an average overhead of about 3%. Health coverage in the private sector averages an overhead of 15 to 18 percent. Medicare is a necessity because few seniors could afford health coverage in the private sector. What do you think that rate would be a 70 year old with heart disease? Probably upwards of several thousand dollars a month. Which is why we have Medicare, in that we can provide a necessary service to seniors in the public sector for less money that the private sector can provide that service. If the goal is for our seniors to have medical coverage, then Medicare meets that goal better than anything else proposed.

That is all neither here nor there though. President Bush in his budget proposed a cut in Medicare benefits and higher premiums for seniors in order to offset some of the costs of the war in Iraq. That is immoral. There is no shared sacrifice in that. Why should the poor and seniors be the only ones who shoulder the financial burden of the war in Iraq?

[forrestkc]

I was listening to Quinn & Rose this morning, and according to them, this is just a reduction in growth, rather than a cut. You know the scam. Republicans cut the rate of growth, and Democrats call it a cut for political gain. This is deceitful. And no Forrest, I don't agree with you that there is a need for "shared sacrifice." You talk about conservatives repeating talking points? This sounds like a Democrat talking point off a left-wing propaganda program.

In addition, if this is immoral, then it is equally immoral that Democrats and liberals won't do anything to try to make sure that Social Security and medicare doesn't go broke, instead of playing politics with it. President Bush has taken the initiative to try to tackle this problem now, so it won't be passed on to future generations, but Democrats care more about making political points than they do about those future generations. That is immoral.

Quinn and Rose are being intellectually dishonest then. If you reduce the amount of growth in a program to where it no longer keeps pace with inflation and population growth, then by definition, it is a cut. This will result in a reduction in coverage, a reduction in the number of the impoverished who qualify for medicaid, and an increase in premiums for seniors.

It is a simple question really. Should the poor and seniors be the only ones to bear the costs of the war in Iraq, or should we all bear that cost?

[ted]

It is a simple question really. Should the poor and seniors be the only ones to bear the costs of the war in Iraq, or should we all bear that cost?

We should all bear the cost, along with the Iraqi's.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that only the "poor and the seniors" are bearing the cost of the war. That sounds a bit like hyped-up political speak, if you ask me.

t.