Once We Stop Libs - The Solutions Are Simple

"We have to face facts. Runaway government liberalism has put the Untied States in debt, or on the hook, for over seventy trillion dollars."

70 trillion huh? That is an interestingly made up number. I wonder which right wing mouthpiece you took that ridiculousness from.

And if you want to blame someone for debt, it's time to start being honest and look at the previous administration. They sold US treasury bonds to socialist China they were last year's tube tops.

Health care is not a simple fix, not if the objective is to ensure our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, et al., are covered with good insurance. Unfortunately, there is no panacea; no silver bullet, and if someone is going to come out of health care reformation bloodied up, I prefer it be the executives of enormous insurance companies.

The bottom line is, you will see sweeping changes in health care during Obama's first 4 years. What it will look like when the debate is over is impossible to say right now, but it is coming, you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

Good points mccookreader. Wasn't Bobby Jindal in the news recently accepting and doling out in the form of an overly large cardboard check federal stimulus money after months of emphatically refusing to be "bailed out?" I guess Sam forgot about all the republican leaders who accepted "taxpayer bailouts." Not surprising as that sort of ruins his entire argument.

I just wanted you guys to read this article from MSNBC. its about the White House backing off the public option and saying that Co-op insurance would be an acceptable alternative.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32437468/ns/...

And Sam, let me also thank you for standing up for the most neglected group in America. All too often, there is no one speaking up for this underprivileged group of people, the top 5% of wage earners don't have a voice in America.

They can't afford lobbyists, they can't get face-to-face time with their senators and the President at fancy dinners. Someone needs to speak for these people. Why should they have to pay 50% of our nations taxes, just because they own 50% of it's wealth? Why must we force them to pay more than their share? It's ridiculous that the bottom 40% of people in the US don't pay income taxes. They own a whopping 1% of the wealth. Why don't they have to pay their due?

Steffanie,

You're forgetting about lots of taxes besides sales tax.

The total amount taxes going to the federal government this year is $2.7 Trillion. Under half of that (about 45%) comes from income taxes. The other half is made up of many other taxes, most prominently the payroll tax, which accounts for over 1/3 of government income.

In fact, the CBO has done a study that showed the effective tax rate (for payroll/excise taxes) is higher for those in the lowest quintile than for those in the highest quintile.

So the effective tax rate for payroll/excise taxes is higher for the poor (people who generally don't pay income taxes) than it is on the highest quintile (the people who pay the largest share of income taxes).

So, while you might be able to complain they aren't paying their share, it's disingenuous to suggest they are getting a 'free' ride at the expense of the rest of us.

And I'll reiterate, it may seem unfair that the upper 5% of citizens are shouldering almost half of the income tax burden. But by many estimates, they are in possession of almost half of the nation's wealth.

And it may seem unfair that the bottom 40% (actually, the last estimate was 38%) don't pay ANY income taxes, but by many estimates they own less than 1% of the nation's wealth.

No Steffanie,

The point is that they are not paying INCOME taxes, but are still paying OTHER taxes. That makes them NOT freeloaders.

Yes, SOMETIMES people do receive a net gain in income tax when rebates are given. But rebates are typically given to either:

a)strengthen the economy, like the Obama rebates and the Bush rebates before that.

b)relieve economic stress on people that are otherwise unable to get by.

And very rarely does the income rebate make up for the total payroll/excise taxes that those people pay. Remember, according to the Congressional Budget Office, their tax burden for those taxes is proportionately higher than the rich's tax rates for those taxes.

And as for welfare, there are are about 4 million people receiving welfare assistance, in a country of more than 300 million. That's less than 2% of the population, and hardly a ridiculous percentage of people needing assistance. Especially when you consider less than 1% of the federal budget is necessary to render that assistance.

Are some people on welfare 'freeloaders'? Absolutely. But it's a also a system that helps lots of honest citizens get back on their feet. It's definitely worth less than 1% of the budget.

Especially when you consider the alternative. If welfare disappeared, what would happen? I'm sure many people that are abusing the system (the freeloaders) would find work. But what about the people who actually need that assistance, and are unable to find jobs? We let them starve? We let them lose their housing? We put them on the streets?

Capitalism is a fine system. A fine system that is completely amoral and uncaring. It's survival of the fittest (much live natural selection). But I'm proud to live in a society that supports the 'unfit', the people that are unable to get by on their own. And relieved to know that if I'm ever in that situation, the rest of society will be there for me to give me a hand.

McCook1,

lol, good point. Of course, that was not really the analogy I intended. Consumer electronics doesn't necessarily extrapolate directly to what the government does. I was simply trying to explain the difference between being 'broke' and operating in the red. Perhaps I chose a bad example.

I think it's still a valid point that during an economic recession, the last thing you want to do is worry about balancing the budget. Spending (which unfortunately balloons the deficit) is likely to lessen any economic recession.

A better example, the Great Depression.

The income tax rates leading up to the great depression and during the great depression were relatively low. Around 1% for the lowest bracket, and around 25% for the highest bracket.

In 1933, the rates were raised to about 4% and 63%. By the end of WWII, they had reached 23% and 94%. They remained relatively high until the Reagan tax reform of the 80's.

All the while, before and during WWII, government spending increased dramatically via the New Deal and war spending. Of course, due to the spending, the national debt ballooned. The economic boon caused by the spending effectively ended the depression, the recovery beginning in 1933 (before the war spending).

After the war, spending was reduced (because the war was over), but the tax rate remained high, so the national debt did not increase. (in fact, as a percentage of GDP, it decreased).

That's how we got through the Great Depression. Taxes were raised, and so was spending. This significantly increased the national debt. A simple look at history shows us this.

(The great depression: A better example than XBOX).

And, Steffanie, don't forget to mention that almost every town has a "housing authority" which mandates you only pay 'X' percentage of whatever your monthly income sum may be. In most cases, housing is cheaper than a couple of tanks of gas.

That leaves even more money for the "common folk" for 135 channels of cable, a carton of smokes a case of beer and texting for every cell phone for every family member.

But, for sure, they shouldn't have to be accountable to pay for their own sniffly nose doctor visits.

Sceptre,

It's frequently cited that the government spent MORE than Reagan's budget proposals during his presidency. There's a pretty simply explanation. Reagan's budget proposals were based on overly optimistic growth projections.

When the President creates the budget, he has to estimate the state of the nation for the next year (GDP, unemployment, etc.). These estimates cause budget fluctuations in mandatory spending when they are off.

For instance, if the President underestimates unemployment for the next year, mandatory spending will be higher than in his projected budget (because unemployment payments will be higher than expected).

Similarly, if the President overestimates economic growth, the deficit will be larger because federal income won't be as high as expected.

This is what happened with Reagan's budget. His administration's initial estimates for every year (except 1984, a year in which we experienced tremendous growth) were overly optimistic. Because of this, the actual mandatory spending was higher than his budget. This cannot be attributed to congress. Now, if discretionary spending increased dramatically, then we might have an issue.

Oh, and the Republicans held the Senate until 1987. Well into his presidency.

And was Reagan ever overridden by a supermajority when he tried to pass his budget?

And finally, if all of that didn't convince you-

Difference between Reagan budget and actual spending, for all 8 years of his presidency: $200 Billion.

Steffanie,

You may want to check your numbers. A household of 4 making $30,000 a year will end up paying about $4,000 in income taxes, leaving $26,000 (married, filing jointly). This is also before adding the child tax credit for the two children. The child tax credit would likely be about $1,000 per child. Bringing the taxes down to just over $2000. This is also before any deductions were claimed on the income. It's very possible that a family of 4 making $30,000 a year will pay no income taxes at all.

But even putting all that aside. The fact remains that less than 1% of the federal budget goes to welfare. Even accounting for WIC funding (which is a federal program), the total remains at about 1%.

If your local government is spending too much on helping the poor (in your opinion), I suggest you take it up with them, I don't live anywhere near you. But national welfare programs amount to a miniscule portion of the federal budget. Hardly enough to get so riled up about.

And I'll even be gracious and give republicans credit here. The welfare reform they pushed for during the Clinton years is responsible for the fact that so little is spent on welfare.

Steffanie,

All i have to say is you are terrible at math. The points about taxes you are trying to make are simply impossible.

And here's my opinion on welfare.

If you live in a middle class area and you are on welfare simply because you didn't go to college or cannot keep a solid mid-level job, you have no one to blame but yourselves. I hear people in this area complain about immigrants stealing jobs. Well, if you can be replaced by someone who cannot speak english, maybe you should attain a new skill set.

Certain people in the worst slums in the world need welfare. I know you think this is libearl hype but its true. Born into poverty, you have worse school sytems, therefore a worse chance to get into a good school, and no getting a good job. It may sound cliche, but that's why we hear it is so hard to make it out of "the ghetto". I'm sure people like steffanie think this is black people being lazy and blaming lives on their surroundings. This is easy to say from sitting at your computer in mccook nebraska.

Basically what I'm saying is welfare is necessary for a lot of people. But not necessary for most of the people that have it. Steffanie your stances on taxpaying are completely surreal.

While I agree with that blanket statement, I think you would be surprised to see the percentages of peoples on welfare.

McCook has one of the highest number of children on free and reduced school lunches, which correlates to family income. Southwest nebraska also has a very high welfare rate.

So while I agree with you I feel when you and sam speak of people cheating welfare you speak only of illegal immigrants and inner city povertous. I could be pigeonholing you. I apologize if so.

My general point is that if you want to get rid of welfare you would be surprised to the extent it would effect mccook and surrounding areas.

G.I.

There you again. You do realize that every time you site the words "promote the general welfare" that those words come from the Preamble? I assume you do but this is not the first time you've made that argument. Therefore, I think it may be time for a civics lesson.

The Preamble is simply an introductory statement of what is to follow. The authority by which the goals stated in the Preamble can legally be enforced, is contained in the Articles themselves. A Preamble does not grant anything, it's simply an introduction to the actual legal provisions of the bill. It would be the equivalent of giving legal authority to the index of a bill and taking a generally worded subsection heading to mean something that it obviously wasn't meant for once you read the legal provisions of that subsection.

People, on both sides, often mistake the Preamble for granting legal authority when it really only spells out what the rest of the bill pertains to. It's very loosely worded because it only described what it relates to in the Articles and that way, every Article could be linked back to something in the Preamble.

If you want to make an argument that one of the Articles grants the authority you mentioned THEN you have the beginnings of a valid argument but stating that the Preamble grants authority is without any legal merit.

PS...here is a touch more clarity: this country was founded on ideas, those ideas are expressed in many documents by many people fighting for a common goal. Where those ideas are expressed and by whom is not so important as the ideas themselves. The preamble to the constitution is a summation all of the ideas upon which the US began and endures.

G.I.,

Sure, the Preamble can be interpreted as also being inspired by our founding principles if that's how you want to look at it. The Constitution, by design and with obvious intent, grants rights to people and intentionally restricts the power of government. They were aware that the Preamble was really only needed to explain the intent of the Articles but in typical American fashion, we threw in a little bit of patriotic prose for added inspiration and it's pretty effective in that regard for the last 222 years.

The reason the wording of the Preamble is in the preamble and not in any of the Articles is because the people drafting it knew those words could be misconstrued to mean something they didn't. In fact, I would wager that including similiar wording in those Articles, never crossed their minds because it was written as a Preamble with the full understanding of what a Preamble does and does not do.

I have not really looked into where government pulls half its authority for some of its programs. Mostly because some programs that could theoretically be proven unconstitutional are beneficial programs to some people who do need the help. As much as I despise welfare, I'd hate to see where our country would be without it completely. I think the people who abuse the system should be punished and kicked off the system so they do have the incentive to find a job and make their own way, according to their ability. I also think some people just fall on hard times and need some help to get through it and back on their feet. I've known people who have manipulated the system to their full benefit because they didn't want to work. I've also known people who have just had hard times and took the assistance, kept track of how much they received for assistance and payed back every penny to the federal agency it came from... even though that agency had no clue how to handle it or what to do with the money.

The other problem is that government is one of the worst organizations to run just about any type of program in a fiscally responsible manner yet they try to criticize industries that actually make a profit because the government thinks they make too much profit. I was listening to somebody on CNN talk about healthcare and how we could pay for healthcare for everybody if we just took the profits from the insurance companies. Now that kind of thinking is truly frightening. Some people just seem to demonize any business that wants to makes a profit. They label them, form the stereotype and do everything in their power to bring them down without realizing that doing so is hurting our nation and its economy.

A great example would be this ridiculous notion that insurance companies need competition. They have competition amongst themselves already. If the government doesn't like the results of competition in a free market and they don't like the prices in a given industry then they can try price control legislation. They don't NEED a public option to drive down prices through competition. If they want all health insurance policies to include coverage for pre-existing conditions, they can write that into law too. The only purpose a public option can serve that regular insurance legislation can't, is the ability of the government to take on the role of everybody's insurance company.

They started with Medicare and Medicaid (which they can't afford). Democrats feel it's time for the next stage which is establishing another program that can take on everybody. When the President says it's just an option and he's is technically correct but he knows that most people will go to the public "option" because government can take losses that businesses can't and therefore, make the plans cheaper. Think about how many people "choose" to go on Medicare and how many "choose" to stay with private insurance. The only area in Medicare for private insurance is the Supplemental coverage.

Ok, I should probably stop my healthcare digression for the sake of space.

"The reason the wording of the Preamble is in the preamble and not in any of the Articles is because the people drafting it knew those words could be misconstrued to mean something they didn't"

McCook1,

I see your point, and don't necessarily disagree. However, the preamble quite clearly lists the reasons for which the Constitution was being ordained and established, and among those reasons was "promoting the general welfare."

I completely disagree that the intention in writing the preamble was mere "patriotic prose." If you read Franklin or Jefferson's biographies you will learn that these men (as well as the rest of the contributors to America's most important documents) were very careful wordsmiths and they went to great lengths to avoid blustery hyperbolic language.

For example, I am looking at my copy of the constitution sitting on my desk and a quote jumps out at me from Thomas Jefferson. It reads:

"This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and so firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

This was the prevailing attitude in the drafting of all of our nations founding documents.

So yes I will interpret the Preamble to represent exactly what it says it represents. That is, the principles for which the Constitution was being written. And so in that regard, the government "promoting the general welfare" is a one of several ideas upon which the Constitution endures.

McCook1,

I don't think I ever argued that the Constitution outlines something specific like food stamps. Nor did I argue the document in anyway delineates what specifically "promoting the general welfare" means. But I think what is obvious is that when the founders thought it best to centralize certain powers and responsibilities in a federal government, one of those responsibilities so carefully chosen and worded was ensuring that the welfare of American citizens was promoted. I am persuaded by the argument that the Constitution was left intentionally vague, and that the genius of the Constitution isn't what is in it, but what is not.

That is what I mean to say in regard to the obligation of our government to care for its citizens as outlined in the Constitution (not the articles).

There are many things that are not in the constitution Mickel. The Air Force is one example. Government subsidized health care would have made as much sense as an airplane to the founders.

Paper money is also unconstitutional. And there is something else not mentioned in the Constitution...God.

You see Mickel, the genius of the US Constitution (and it's writers) is that it is so vague and so changeable (see 27 amendments) that it can survive in the context of 1776, and endure until the context of 2009. The founders new they weren't going to write a perfect document that made sense for all time, so they built in a way to amend the Constitution. So when airplanes were invented, when booze became a problem, when blacks and women earned equal rights as citizens, the Constitution changed to reflect the progression of society.

Government subsidized health care does not need to be mentioned in the articles of the Constitution in order to exist, just like God and the Air Force.

G.I.,

You did not change my mind but I did. Article I Section 8. That is where you should make your argument. It seems I find something new in the Constitution every time I read depending on what I'm looking for.

Btw, I had a very long post I deleted because I got a hair and figured I should doublecheck and there it was.

I recognize the concept but only "came around" because the ability to provide the "general welfare" is spelled out in the Articles. The Preamble still establishes no legal authority. The authority is still in the Articles. Regardless of the concept, the federal government only has those powers specifically spelled out in the Articles and Amendments. Anything that is not addressed in there, is denied to the federal government as spelled out in the 10th Amendment.

The Preamble and any given person's opinion of the reason for the establishment of the country can't be construed as giving any sort of power to the federal government. I understand that you think we should provide these services because of that but we should still proceed through the amendment process to give government the authority to actually carry out those duties. Otherwise, they are acting unconstitutionally.

Thank you jhat for posting the link to the list of what each state receives for each dollar sent to the feds--interesting how many red states, including Nebraska, are true welfare states, that is they receive more in federal dollars than they pay in--yet how often have these pages been filled with cries from the right about not wanting their tax dollars to fund liberal programs--FACT being it's not their tax dollars at all--FACT being welfare state Nebraska receives more than they send to the Feds (and has for years)--does it follow then all those far right conservatives who howl about government interference in their lives refuse to accept benefit from the unequal distribution of taxes?

Don't worry far rightists, those crazy liberals in the blue states won't take away your statewide welfare benefits, they know you can't make it on your own and need the subsidies from the blue states.

Enjoy your welfare from the blue states Steffanie, Chunky, etc. Whine about your perceived liberal destruction of our great Republic if you must, but how about a little gratitude for all the welfare benefits you all have been enjoying for years.

I do find it funny to be talking about the air force. Sam wants to stop all taxes for 2 yrs, who is going to pay for our armed forces? You say Obama is weak of defence, well you really suck at it

Mickel, reread this line: "The Air Force is one example. Government subsidized health care would have made as much sense as an airplane to the founders."

I think you should try and read more carefully. I wasn't making an argument against the Air Force, merely pointing out that simply because something isn't expressly written in the Constitution doesn't mean it's existence (or prospective existence) is unconstitutional.

SO, your original statement to which I was responding, "And one thing that is NOT in the Constitution is any mention of government subsidized health care," is a bit of a clunker. Meaning, many things that are not in the Constitution explicitly (like the Air Force) are still Constitutional because as society progresses and the needs of the country change so too changes how we read and interpret the Constitution. Room was made for an Air Force because advances in science made a new branch of the military a possibility and in Art. 1 Sect. 8 "providing for the common defense" is a Constitutional principle.

Room can also be made for federally subsidized health care based on the same logic and the same article and section that also lays out "promoting the general welfare," as a federal responsibility.