No, that's not what I said. I said that the Federal Government didn't have the authority to be involved in social programs. They are the domain of the state.

The "problem", as I see it, is that the Federal Government has become a leviathan, trying to be all things to all people. The only way to eliminate unwanted/unneeded programs is to move them back closer to the funding source.
Did you know that the Federal Government returns back to the states only a fraction of money the states send to it for education, for example? Any time money passes from the state to the Feds and then back to the state, there is a huge chuck siphoned off in administrative costs.
Eliminating the Federal programs and giving them back to the state eliminates another layer of program administration and forces the state to fund the program directly.
I've always believed that if US workers had to write a check to the IRS every month to pay our FIT, people would scrutinize where the money went more closely.

[b]Of course there'd be chaos. Once you take money away from those that don't deserve it, they get angry.

Imagine what would happen in the US when California's liberal handling of illegal aliens bankrupts the state.....Oh wait, that has already happened.

 

I wasn't claiming any high ground. I was only pointing out that liberals defend the First Amendment ONLY when it fits their agenda.
For example, how many ACLU lawyers have defended anti-abortion protestors? Or how many have taken on cities trying to outlaw the legal ownership of firearms by its citizens? My guess...NONE.

Quote:

Not at all. My point was simply that extremist exists on both sides. I think we agree on that.

Yes we do.

Waxy [/QUOTE]

 

How many conservatives have stood up to protect flag burners?

I don't hear conservatives crying out to preserve first amendment rights anymore than anyone else. Also, if there was no OPPOSITION to these actions from the conservative right, they'd be a non issue.

I honestly don't think one side has a claim to this.

Quote:

Or how many have taken on cities trying to outlaw the legal ownership of firearms by its citizens? My guess...NONE.

Firstly, that's a second amendment issue.

Secondly, that is a guess only, and I'd say that while there's merit in it, it certainly is not true of everyone.

We seem to have bogged down here a little.

Other than your assertion that the federal gov't doesn't have the right to administer social programs, I don't see this going anywhere.

I pointed out that it seemed to me like simply a matter of semantics.

Are we discussing the "theory" of politics here, or are we discussing the "practicality".

Theory - I can see your position that based on the Constitution, the federal gov't should have no part in social programs.

However, would it not make more sense IN THEORY, both financially and socially, to have these programs administered at a federal level? It would seem to me that would be the best way to ensure equality amongst all Americans, while at the same time, doing it in the most efficient manner.

It would seem to me that if this power was given to the states, you'd likely have at least 50 different ways of doing things, all of different quality. IMHO, an American, or a Canadian, should not be favoured/punished when it comes to social programs due to their geographical location.

My sugesstion -

First off, determine what programs all Americans should have equal access to. Example - medicare, education, EI, OAS, etc...

Now,

Eliminate the middle men. You pay the feds, they administer the programs. No one in between. No state, no county, no city interference. Period. Eliminate the beauracracy. Every penny paid into a program is returned, no slush funds.

IMHO, it's the process of going through 3 or 4 levels of gov't that really hits the taxpayer.

Gas taxes, sales taxes, etc should be administered at a state level.

All other services - water/sewer to garbage collection should be dealt with at the lowest possible level of gov't.


Practical - The systems have all been terribly corrupted. You rightfully point out that you don't get back what you put in, and that there is a lot of waste. The problem is, you don't pay a military tax, you don't pay a foreign aid tax, etc... So, they take the money out of every other program to cover the difference. Rather than have separate and independent social programs, the federal gov't forms one big pool of money with all tax revenue, and them divies it up as it sees fit. IMHO, that's where the problem lies.

Waxy

 

Jp
It does appear you have thought through this, I am frankly surprised. Most guys who are spoutin' off about liberal/conservative/commie/anarchcist .... haven't a clue what they are talking about giving up.

That said, as we know, there are a huge number of peole on the public dole at any one time. A very large number of them are fully dependent on medical and social services provided by the government. If those services are interrupted, people are going to die, due to lack of care. We need to keep in mind of course that these are not contributing members of society. Old folks who are dependent on staff to wipe their butts, mental incompetents, and birth defects are just a few categories. Knowing this, are you cold-hearted enough to turn off the the tap? I think I am, but society would certainly classify me as something less than worthy of a peace prize. We're talking a lot of bidness for the funeral parlor.

The price for unsubsidized medical care, I:E pay based on your risk is a lot higher than $900/ month. Even at that, most policies top out at a cool million. It wouldn't take very long for an extended illness to break that. Where is Mom And Dad going to go when they reach the max benefit? This is a subject dear to my heart, as an insider.

Are you not concerned that slightly crooked, conservative state governments, like Washington, Oregon, California will sell off the trees in their new state forests for money to run programs? That would remove them for your children.

 

The tenth amendment is what I think he's talking about.

The federal government is supposed to be limited to specifically what is provided for in the constitution and nothing more. It's always ignored now though.

 

Replying to your theory: A fundamental premise of our Forefathers, when they created the Republic, was to limit the size and scope of the Federal Government and put the majority of the responsibility for governing on the states. Only those functions that clearly couldn't be retained by the individual states were ceded to the Federal Government, namely national defense and trade. Our Forefathers were deathly afraid of a Federal leviathan like the one that exists today. I agree with them 100%.

Quote:

My sugesstion -

First off, determine what programs all Americans should have equal access to. Example - medicare, education, EI, OAS, etc...

We don't live in a socialist state, none of the aforementioned programs should be state or federally mandated. These are social programs that should be voluntary to individuals, not governmentally-mandated.

Quote:

Now,

Eliminate the middle men. You pay the feds, they administer the programs. No one in between. No state, no county, no city interference. Period. Eliminate the beauracracy. Every penny paid into a program is returned, no slush funds.

Tell me, would you want a group of bureaucrats 3000 miles away to run your local high school or would you want parents and locally-elected and accountable people running it?
Do you recall what happened to the supply of gasoline in the mid 70's when Uncle Sam decided that he was going to take over distribution of gas in the US? I do. I lived in the NE and remember the 2 hour gas lines while those living in the Midwest had too much gas allocated to them. No thanks, the Federal Government has proven its inability to provide services on a microeconomic level time and time again.

Quote:

IMHO, it's the process of going through 3 or 4 levels of gov't that really hits the taxpayer.

I agree that the middlenam should be eliminated, but the middleman now is the Federal Govermnent. It is the single largest employer in the US today....and it is, by its very size, inefficient.

Quote:

Gas taxes, sales taxes, etc should be administered at a state level.

Why not administer education, healthcare (using your examples) and other programs on the state level. That way, there is only one level of buracracy to deal with.

Quote:

All other services - water/sewer to garbage collection should be dealt with at the lowest possible level of gov't.

As they are now.

Quote:

Practical - The systems have all been terribly corrupted. You rightfully point out that you don't get back what you put in, and that there is a lot of waste. The problem is, you don't pay a military tax, you don't pay a foreign aid tax, etc... So, they take the money out of every other program to cover the difference. Rather than have separate and independent social programs, the federal gov't forms one big pool of money with all tax revenue, and them divies it up as it sees fit. IMHO, that's where the problem lies.

Waxy

If the Federal Government stuck to its mandate, the citizens of the US would know exactly what their FIT was being used for. The problem arose when it expanded its scope outside of its original intent. My plan would force the Federal Government to divest off all of its responsibilities except for those provided for in the Constitution.
The social programs would either be picked up by the individual states or discarded as the state sees fit.
You see this as unacceptable because of your socialist thinking. You believe that ALL programs have to be available to ALL citizens. I, simply, don't hold that same belief. It is a socialistic philosophy and the US wasn't created to be a Socialist State. We were created as a Republic where individuals had the power to make their own choices. The idea of forcing people into financing a governmental social program is relatively new in our history. It wasn't until that great Socialist, FDR, looked for ways out of the Depression that included robbing the rich to give to the poor, that we became comfortable with coerced participation in national social programs.
It was a mistake that has perpetuated itself for ~70 years now.

 

Interesting thread, I've enjoyed the exchanges. Lib or Conservative, most must agree that today there is little difference between the two major parties. Both spend money we don't have with total abandon, grow the government and are devoted to the preservation of their elected office. Mandatory government spending is a monster that would make Frankenstein proud and will reach 11.1% of GDP this year, a record high. Nondefense decretionary spending will amount to 3.9% of GNP for the first time since 1985 . The federal government will spend $21,000 per household (up from $16,000 in 1999) and continue to heap debt on the backs of our grandchildren. A politician once said, "The best way to get in office is to be in office" and that is true. We complain, but we continue to send the same people back to DC over and over and over. I would like to see a nationwide movement to VOTE OUT INCUMBENTS. Demo or Republician, Lib or conservative, doesn't matter - if he (she) has been there two or more terms, send that sucker home! Maybe then they would begin to respect the voters and really listen to them. Will this happen? No, but it's fun to imagine.
Dono

 

OK, I can see how I set myself up for that.

Point being - Your community and school system gets back exactly what they put in. It's now up to the school boards/system to best determine how to use that money. The Feds don't have any control on supply/demand of funds OR how they are used. They simply collect from the masses and give to those designated. No thought involved, no chance to screw up.

Quote:

Why not administer education, healthcare (using your examples) and other programs on the state level. That way, there is only one level of buracracy to deal with.

I addressed this in this paragraph.

Probably too socialist for you.

Quote:

If the Federal Government stuck to its mandate, the citizens of the US would know exactly what their FIT was being used for. The problem arose when it expanded its scope outside of its original intent. My plan would force the Federal Government to divest off all of its responsibilities except for those provided for in the Constitution.
The social programs would either be picked up by the individual states or discarded as the state sees fit.
You see this as unacceptable because of your socialist thinking. You believe that ALL programs have to be available to ALL citizens. I, simply, don't hold that same belief. It is a socialistic philosophy and the US wasn't created to be a Socialist State. We were created as a Republic where individuals had the power to make their own choices. The idea of forcing people into financing a governmental social program is relatively new in our history. It wasn't until that great Socialist, FDR, looked for ways out of the Depression that included robbing the rich to give to the poor, that we became comfortable with coerced participation in national social programs.
It was a mistake that has perpetuated itself for ~70 years now.

jpsartre,

You do a wonderful job of breaking things down to the letter of the Constitution, and it seems, looking out for #1.

I am admittedly socialist in my views, I believe it's man's responsibility to help his fellow man. I believe that all men should have reasonable and equal access to the necessities of life. I despise the idea of a caste sytem with a ruling elite the way you despise paying into socialist programs.

I seek a middle ground.

I've asked you a couple times now as to what you would do in place of these social programs. You've evaded the question both times, "chaos or civil war" I believe.

If these programs were a mistake, then what was the correct answer? If we're going to get into the realm of philosophical politics, I would love to hear how you (or any Constitutional conservative) would set up the US.

Dog eat dog? Seems to me we tried that, it's what led to the programs being created.

How would you see the US dealing with the problems that these programs now attempt to address? Voluntary benevolence?

Would you opt out of them?

What would you propose that the other half of society, those you deem as not worthy of the programs do? Die and go away? Steal and loot? Get one of the jobs that don't exist?

It's fine to believe in the letter of the Constitution, but how are you going to address the problems inherent with the system?

Waxy

 

If that's the case, then all states would agree to fund national parks from state funds.

Many? How many compared to children and younger citizens? The income demographics show that you're wrong. Seniors are the wealthiest class of citizen in the US. That's indisputable.

Watch much TV? How many Viagara commercials do you see? The target customer isn't 25-34. ;-)


It's bad enough that we've burdened the younger workers with paying for old people that didn't have the sense to plan for their own retirement properly, but with COLAs and new special interest groups also being incorporated into already bloated plans, it's choking the current and future wage earners.
Balonney! The average current SS recipient, from the last estimates that I've heard, is receiving 17X what he/she paid into the system. It wasn't meant to be a bottomless pit, but when you have the country's largest monolithic voting block scrutinizing a politician's every action, they cave more often than not. It's political suicide to refuse to increase benefits to Seniors and politicians are well-aware of that fact. I tell my kids that they should organize as a voting block to counter Seniors.

As I stated before, if they can't afford healthcare, who can, being that they're the richest group in the country.

 

Well, I guess you're allowed to be surprised since you don't know me. I spend my professional life solving problems and I enjoy it, so it's only natural that I would do the same outside of work.
Sometime, ask me about my unsuccessful run at a school board position and the teacher union that funded my opponent after hearing my solutions to our district's poor performance. :-)

Quote:

That said, as we know, there are a huge number of peole on the public dole at any one time. A very large number of them are fully dependent on medical and social services provided by the government. If those services are interrupted, people are going to die, due to lack of care. We need to keep in mind of course that these are not contributing members of society. Old folks who are dependent on staff to wipe their butts, mental incompetents, and birth defects are just a few categories. Knowing this, are you cold-hearted enough to turn off the the tap? I think I am, but society would certainly classify me as something less than worthy of a peace prize. We're talking a lot of bidness for the funeral parlor.

I don't believe that anyone should EVER starve to death in the world's richest country. That being said, I also don't believe that everyone has a God-given right to everything that modern medicine has to offer gratis.
I think that the Federal Government needs to be taken out of the social program arena. It clearly has no business being there. But, you can't turn the tap off over night. I think that states should b put on a timetable fo assuming social programs that they wish to continue funding in their state. If they don't find money to fund the program than it is the state and not the Federal Government that is throwing people out in the street. And make no mistake about it, it is and has been done right here in Michigan. We threw 250,000 able-bodied sponges off of the dole under Gov. Engler and closed some mental facilities as well.
The only feedback that I heard was praise from some of those forced to work for a living. They said that it gave them some dignity back and they liked being self-sufficient. It's the old "give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he never goes hungry" scenario.

Quote:

The price for unsubsidized medical care, I:E pay based on your risk is a lot higher than $900/ month. Even at that, most policies top out at a cool million. It wouldn't take very long for an extended illness to break that. Where is Mom And Dad going to go when they reach the max benefit? This is a subject dear to my heart, as an insider.

I didn't pull that figure from my hat. It is the amount that my In-Laws pay for private insurance until they hit Medicare age.

Quote:

Are you not concerned that slightly crooked, conservative state governments, like Washington, Oregon, California will sell off the trees in their new state forests for money to run programs? That would remove them for your children.

Not in the least. It is a poor businessman that doesn't replant after harvesting a renewable resource. Most lumber companies aren't that stupid. And as far as the Republik of Kalifornia goes, I'd rather see the tress sold than burned because having another water tower nearby would have been an eyesore or because clearing the flammable underbrush would harm the kangaroo rat's natural habitat. ;-)

 

How many adds for fast food, diapers, new cars, and feminine products do you see?

I think it's pretty obvious that seniors aren't the target demographic. In fact, I believe that the average person UNDER 20 is the prime demographic of today's advertisers.

Of course there are all those life insurance and reverse mortgage plans to help ease the financial burden on seniors.

Quote:

Balonney! The average current SS recipient, from the last estimates that I've heard, is receiving 17X what he/she paid into the system. It wasn't meant to be a bottomless pit, but when you have the country's largest monolithic voting block scrutinizing a politician's every action, they cave more often than not. It's political suicide to refuse to increase benefits to Seniors and politicians are well-aware of that fact. I tell my kids that they should organize as a voting block to counter Seniors.

Isn't that the idea?

How much good would your RRSP or 401k be to you if you could only take out what you put in after 30 years?

17X may be excessive, but that is the principle behind a retirement investment.

The mismanagement has allowed the program to compromised for other spending "needs" and has allowed it to become the problem it is today.

Quote:

As I stated before, if they can't afford healthcare, who can, being that they're the richest group in the country.

So you assert.

BUT, never mind them, how about you?

That's where the number came from.

I was pointing out that you forgot to calculate inflation into your numbers.

Waxy

 

I can't argue with much of what you stated above because, unfortunately, it's true. If you recall, in one of my earliest posts, I said
"If you want to learn about what it means to be a true Conservative, read Thomas Jefferson's writings. If you want to learn what it means to be a true Liberal, read Karl Marx.
All the rest is just shades of gray."

The reason that I said that is because the differences between the two parties is at an all-time low. Republicans just passed a $400+ Billion prescription plan for the wealthiest segment of the population, who didn't even want it, and it was some of the most liberal Democrats speaking against it! ;-)
In my mind, "compassionate conservative" is just the polite Republican way to say "liberal".


Here in Michigan, we have term limits for our politicians. When they are term-limited out of office, they run for another office. The Democratic Henchman, David Bonior, was term-limited out of Congress recently and attempted to run for Governor. He went down in flames in the Democratic Primary because he was even too radical for the Democratic state of Michigan. Instead, in our infinite wisdom, we elected a Canadian woman as governor......go figure.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Waxy
[B]How many adds for fast food, diapers, new cars, and feminine products do you see?

I think it's pretty obvious that seniors aren't the target demographic. In fact, I believe that the average person UNDER 20 is the prime demographic of today's advertisers.

Of course there are all those life insurance and reverse mortgage plans to help ease the financial burden on seniors.

[b]

[QUOTE]
Isn't that the idea?
[QUOTE]
Take a look at this:
http://www.atr.org/issues/socialsecu...urn_rates.html
This is what my children will get as a return on their investment. 17X looks huge by comparison, doesn't it?

My 401K will be enough for me to be comfortable because I'm not depending on SS to be around in 20 years. Unlike the old people before me, I plan for MY retirement; I don't expect Uncle Sam to support me.

A good investment doubles in ~7-10 years or so?
So, how good do you think the Federal Government did in investing our SS? Not good enough to pay out 17X, for sure.

Unquestionably, that's part of the problem. But when the program started, there were 16.5 workers for every retiree and the life expectancy of that retiree was only a few years. When the Baby Boomers start retiring in droves, there will be less than 3 workers per SS reciptent.

Note:Speaking on the cost of private insurance
I hope to be in excellent financial shape long before I get white hair because, unlike socialists, I make my own plans and therefore, don't have to sponge off others. I believe in self-determination.

 

From Jpsartre:
I didn't pull that figure from my hat. It is the amount that my In-Laws pay for private insurance until they hit Medicare age.

Which ignores the actual cost post retirement. And does not address the million dollar cap. A million bucks sounds like a lot until you start having those $14,000 MRI's. I'm still not sure you have taken that part into account. A truly devastating illness, or even a serious chronic illness, you have no insurance pretty quick. Are you envisioning who will be wiping your in-laws bodies if their health coverage tops out?
In actuality, I am in agreement with most of your plan. It is horridly harsh, but we can't continue the way the we are. Our medical costs are going to bankrupt us. Can you say "rationed healthcare"?

 

Well, you are obviously one of the lucky and smart ones. Not everyone, regardless of their work ethic or intelligence, is able to do that. Simply a fact of the society we live in. Planning and paying for a comfortable retirement on minimum wage isn't easy.

One way or another, the cost associated with those who couldn't, OR CHOSE NOT TO, save sufficiently for retirement is going to end up at the doorstep of the gov't, doesn't matter what level. We either pay, or the alternative is to let them die in the street.

This is an unavoidable dilemma as far as I'm concerned.

Now, I many be wrong here, but I think those people planned too. They didn't expect the gov't to support them, they planned, and they had faith in their country. They invested in it.

I'm not sure if US and Canadian SS are set up in the same manner. If so, SS should be one of the best programs going, and was a brilliant plan as far as I'm concerned.

The point of any retirement fund is to pay into it as an investment with hopes that your investment sees a good return, and you make sufficient profit to be able to live out your remaining unemployable years on that investment.

The difference is that instead of placing your money into the hands of a private firm, you put it into the hands of Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam is supposed to invest your money in the country, for the good of the country, providing you with a good rate of return. Same deal as your private planning, only you're helping out your country. (In theory).

Was that not planning? They were told to invest in the USA for a bountiful future.

If the money was properly managed, and politicians weren't too afraid to do what needed to be done, the system, in theory, would work beautifully. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Quote:

A good investment doubles in ~7-10 years or so?
So, how good do you think the Federal Government did in investing our SS? Not good enough to pay out 17X, for sure.

Hmmmmm. Mismanaged perhaps?


[quote]Unquestionably, that's part of the problem. But when the program started, there were 16.5 workers for every retiree and the life expectancy of that retiree was only a few years. When the Baby Boomers start retiring in droves, there will be less than 3 workers per SS reciptent.
[/qutoe]

I still can't fathom that you labelled my assertion that mismanagent is the problem as "baloney". Everything you've pointed out is a DIRECT result of mismanagement of the SS fund.

1- Rates did not reflect payees vs. payers - this was never addressed and yet is obvious to anyone who looked at it, WELL BEFORE IT HAPPENED.

2- Payout rates - 17X is out of whack, the number is due to point #1, but is clearly not sustainable - it's being mismanaged.

3- The money has not provided the rate of return on investment that it should have. Private investors have historically done considerably better. IMHO, this is mismanagement.

If this were your private retirement fund, and it was handled in this manner, would you say it was mismanaged?

Quote:

I hope to be in excellent financial shape long before I get white hair because, unlike socialists, I make my own plans and therefore, don't have to sponge off others. I believe in self-determination.

Self determination is my personal mantra. If you look around this board you'll clearly see that.

So I can only give you these two points -

1- There's an old line about the best laid plans of mice and men....

2- I believe in helping others to help themselves, we can't all be billionaires.

Waxy