Drug Testing for Welfare recipents

[Spiderman]

The government only has one method to raise revenue and that is taxation

Technically, no, they don't. As you (sort of) mention two paragraphs later, they can either cut back on services OR cut services/trim the budget elsewhere to cover it.

The way you originally phrased it, it sounded like you were saying that if they need to make up fraud, then they raise taxes specifically to cover that program. And they did, in the 80's. Medicare taxes specifically jumped.

The program isn't bankrupt. If anything, it has a negative cash flow, meaning it is paying out more than it is taking in. However, I believe the Social Security report that comes out every year covers Medicare and overall, the program IS taking in more than it is paying out. Only in the year 2019? or such is it predicted that there will be a negative income flow and start going through the surplus, such that by 2039 or so the program will be at "zero" and I guess be bankrupt.

Why do you think it's bankrupt?

 

[DarthFerret]

And, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced last week that Federal Spending has increased by 21.4% since Obama has taken office. Just thought I would throw that out there. Obviously, even if taxes have not increased in some areas yet, they are going to have to increase now...

 

[Spiderman]

That's meaningless when there's nothing to compare it to. For all we know, federal spending increased 30% under Bush when he was in office for the same time.

 

[DarthFerret]

Actually, no. It was also stated that this is the highest increase in government spending in a 2 year period, than we have ever had before. Sorry to everyone out there that wants to put all the problems on Bush, but after Obama's promises (in his campaigning) of not raising government spending, this should come as a slap in the face.

 

[Oversoul]

It was also stated that this is the highest increase in government spending in a 2 year period, than we have ever had before.

Highest increase or highest percentage increase? I'm pretty sure the latter would raise some eyebrows, but I rather doubt that it's true.

 

[Spiderman]

Sorry to everyone out there that wants to put all the problems on Bush, but after Obama's promises (in his campaigning) of not raising government spending, this should come as a slap in the face.

I'm not trying to put the problems on Bush, but rather using him as the counterpoint since you seem to be putting the problems on Obama.

Additionally, the numbers could be coming from a different way the spending is calculated. Did YOU know that during Bush's time in office or most of it, requests for spending for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were made outside the budget and instead made under some "emergency contingency" spending work-around that wasn't counted normally? If Obama's administration IS counting it now "normally" and/or making the requests within the normal budget procedures, that would obviously account for the big increase (and I believe they're trying to do that, make the requests within the budget)

Don't be fooled by just whatever numbers people put out, look for the rationale BEHIND the numbers.

 

[EricBess]

I don't think that it's the specific numbers that people are upset about. I think it's the policies. People know that wars are expensive and that "national defence" costs money. The only question here is whether those two items are the same in this case.

The attitude of simply spending money without any thought seems to have started with the bank bailouts. Let's just have the taxpayers bail out fat cats. Yes, that was on Bush's watch and I certainly want to give credit where credit is due, but I also recall that the elections were in full swing and Obama at that time was already acting as if he were the president. There was a lot of political pressure from and on the candidates and the president to support the bailouts.

But the stimulus packages that came later were pretty much all on Obama. And pushing yet another entitlement program is also on Obama. From the number's I've seen Medicare and Social Security each account for approximately 20% of the federal budget. "National Defence" accounts for around 25% of the budget. In additional Medicare and Social Security spending tend to be increasing at a rate faster than other areas of the economy. So adding another entitlement program in Obamacare is very likely to be more of the same.

Between Obamacare and all the stimulus packages, Obama has spent more than any other president, including Bush, and Bush had spent more already than any previous president. Talking about percentage increases is kind of silly because as things progress, a smaller percentage of existing still represents a larger amount. $1 is 100% of $1, but is only 50% of $2. If you want to talk % of GDP, that might be more reasonable and I don't know what those numbers are.

 

[Spiderman]

<shrug> Would it have been different under Bush?

 

[DarthFerret]

Yes, but that is mainly because, under Bush, there would be no government healthcare bill. As EB stated (and he obviously knows more of the actual facts than I do), the increase in healthcare is pretty astounding. Bush had no plans (that I was ever aware of) to put in place a government run health care system. Obama is trying to do just that (not sure if it is a sure thing yet or not, but that is because this night shift stuff is keeping me out of the loop. Luckily my last night is tonight...then I go back to day shift again and might actually catch the news sometime).

 

[Oversoul]

Talking about percentage increases is kind of silly because as things progress, a smaller percentage of existing still represents a larger amount.

The reason I brought that up was because DF made the claim, which I do believe is correct, that in Obama's presidency this country has seen the highest increase in government spending in history and without comparing percentage (or at least comparing something that makes sense for a comparison) it's otherwise kind of pointless. Of course an increase in government spending is going to be bigger now than it was in most of this country's history. That's obvious (because of inflation). It's completely and utterly unsurprising and also completely and utterly irrelevant to anything. A higher percentage increase, on the other hand, would be very telling indeed (but without crunching any numbers, I'm guessing that the increase isn't comparable to the one seen during World War II).

What's this about a government-run healthcare system, though? I've been out of the loop too, but I have to admit that I'm a bit suspicious because I heard phrases like that thrown around months ago despite the lack of any stated plans by anyone in the Obama administration (or government in general, for that matter) to nationalize the hospitals...

 

[DarthFerret]

It is not a nationalization of the hospitals. It is the government requiring all citizens to carry health insurance, and if you do not have it on your own, or through your employer, then you will be required to take what the government is offering (and you will be required to pay for it too). This is an over-simplified explanation, and there are a lot of intricacies involved in it. However, the government being allowed to FORCE a person to have to buy something whether they like it or not is ridiculous. I have heard it compared to auto insurance, however, you are not forced to have it. You just have to have it if you want to drive. I am pretty sure that driving is a choice (albiet for most a neccessary choice), where as being alive is not so much a choice as a fact (ruling out suicide, but lets not go there...). Even income taxes are a choice (trust me, they are, if you have the money and intelligence to fight it, you can and some actually win). I really do not trust anything that the government decides to force on people and I also do not think the government is competent enough to operate a health care insurance industry.

 

[EricBess]

<shrug> Would it have been different under Bush?

Clearly it would have been vastly different under any other president. Obama has been pushing congress for all sorts of changes. Obamacare, Cap and Trade, Economic Reform, Stimulus Bills. None of these are small issues. While some might debate this, I think that deep down, everyone realizes that if you really want to create jobs long term, you need to create an environment where business are comfortable hiring. The current political climate is shifting so much that no one wants to do that until things slow down and they can figure out what the rules are going to be.

I think the question you really want is would it have been better under Bush? That's a question no one can know for sure, but I don't see that as an excuse for Obama.

DF - I don't know that I necessarily know more of the facts than anyone else, but I have spent a lot of time looking at different sides of this. There are a few things concerning Obamacare that no one really disputes. For example, entitlement programs, such as medicare and social security, are a huge portion of the federal budget, as is "defence" spending (I put "defence" in quotes because many would argue that the current wars are not in the interest of defence, but in aggression. I'm on the fence). Obamacare isn't government-run healthcare and I personally have been careful not to call it that, but it's designed to lead in that direction in my opinion. It certainly raises the cost of healthcare.

What I can say about Obamacare is that they have manipulated the money to make it seem like it is not going to be as expensive as it is. What was submitted to the CBO was a plan to start collecting additional taxes immediately, but the plan itself would not kick in for 4 years. When they look at a 10-year budget, therefore, the CBO says that it won't increase the deficit by more than X. But that's based on 10 years of tax collection to pay for 6 years of Obamacare. What are the costs once the 10 years have past? This is why I say it's just another huge entitlement program that is going to end up forcing the government to increase taxes and create an additional burden on the budget.

It is also well accepted that Medicare and Social Securty costs are one of the fastest growing pieces of the federal budget. Much of this is likely due to the baby boomer's reaching retirement age, so you cannot simply state that entitlement programs grow unbounded. Regardless, if you believe that the purpose of a government is to provide infrastructure, public goods, and the rule of law, there is no reason that any of these entitlement programs should exist in the first place. But that is an entirely different discussion.

For the record - I also completely agree with DF about the federal government forcing health insurance. It is certainly NOT the same as auto insurance, which is only required if you actually want to drive. Not driving would certainly be a huge inconvenience now days, but it can be done.

 

[DarthFerret]

I guess I should clarify. I call it government run health care, because that is what it will be. If the government forces a person to get health insurance, then which company are they gonna force you to use. No one knows the answer to that yet (as far as I know). But when one is chosen, it will start being heavily regulated and having extra burdens placed upon it by the government (think of the 3000 page manual on the use of a hammer...yes they actually did that). Things will then progress further until it is the government running the show (company). Thus it would be government run health care for certain. The only other alternative would be for the government to form thier own "tax" or whatever you call it and create thier own health insurance. This would eventually displace a lot of our top medical personell as the government would start regulating (more than they already do with Medicare and Medicade) how much a physician can bill for a procedure. The highest educated will either flee the US to go work somewhere with a higher earning potential, or will pursue other carrers. This will degregate the level of medical service that can be provided to the US people and will end up becomming what is already evident in Canada and in England (why do you think the wealthy come to the US for thier medical procedures now?).

 

[Spiderman]

So has the "spending" or taxes for health card actually been passed or spent? Or is it all still just talk right now?

Clearly it would have been vastly different under any other president. Obama has been pushing congress for all sorts of changes. Obamacare, Cap and Trade, Economic Reform, Stimulus Bills. None of these are small issues

"Vastly"? Maybe. How much did the country's finances/fortunes change from Clinton to Bush? One could also argue "vastly": the budget went from surplus and balanced to negative and unbalanced, more lives have been paid than the Sept. 11 attacks in the Afghan and Iraq wars, the spending involved with both wars, both immediate and long-term (thinking veteran care, both physical and mentally here), and the economy at the tail end of the Bush's term that he certainly would have had to deal with in some way had he been re-elected.

So far, it seems you are saying that under Obama, new programs have been pushed for and passed, which has increased spending, but has the average citizen's way of life deteriorated, improved, or stayed the same? No one's even seen the effect of the programs yet since it's too early to tell, so so far, all I see you and DF saying about one of them, health care, is doom-and-gloom speculation so far.

 

[EricBess]

So has the "spending" or taxes for health card actually been passed or spent? Or is it all still just talk right now?

Honestly, I'm not entirely certain everything that Obamacare entails, but my understanding is that certain things were to take effect immediately, such as the limit on pre-existing conditions. Health care premiums have already started to increase because of Obamacare's new rules, so in that sense, there is already spending, but I believe it is more in the sense of existing programs have gotten more expensive. I really don't know. My understanding is that anything involving spending directly in the Obamacare legislations doesn't take effect for 4 years, but the tax revenues start immediately. Whether there are new taxes or redistributions of existing taxes I also couldn't say.

"Vastly"? Maybe. How much did the country's finances/fortunes change from Clinton to Bush? One could also argue "vastly": the budget went from surplus and balanced to negative and unbalanced, more lives have been paid than the Sept. 11 attacks in the Afghan and Iraq wars, the spending involved with both wars, both immediate and long-term (thinking veteran care, both physical and mentally here), and the economy at the tail end of the Bush's term that he certainly would have had to deal with in some way had he been re-elected.

I said things would be vastly different. I don't make any assertions on whether they would have been necessarily better or even involve less spending.

So far, it seems you are saying that under Obama, new programs have been pushed for and passed, which has increased spending, but has the average citizen's way of life deteriorated, improved, or stayed the same? No one's even seen the effect of the programs yet since it's too early to tell, so so far, all I see you and DF saying about one of them, health care, is doom-and-gloom speculation so far.

I disagree about seeing the effects of the program. Right now, we are in an environment where businesses don't want to take risks because they aren't sure what the new rules are going to be. Unemployment numbers are incredibly high as a result. What I am saying is had the government not tried to push so many things through in a short time frame, I believe that we wouldn't currently have the level of unemployment that we do because companies would have started hiring again. Can I prove this? No, but I have talked to a good number of people who feel the same way I do, including people who would have been in a position to hire, but haven't.

As for the long-term effects of the programs themselves, you are correct that it is certainly too early to say what they will do, but if we look at similar government programs and the way the numbers were presented, I think we can make some extrapolations that aren't inappropriate. If I've come across as "gloom and doom", that wasn't intentional, but I do believe that we would be a lot better off in the long run with more personal accountability and without so many entitlements. There is certainly more evidence of that than anything suggesting that we will have any improvements or even "business as usual".

 

[Spiderman]

Health care premiums have already started to increase because of Obamacare's new rules, so in that sense, there is already spending, but I believe it is more in the sense of existing programs have gotten more expensive. I really don't know. My understanding is that anything involving spending directly in the Obamacare legislations doesn't take effect for 4 years, but the tax revenues start immediately.

So are the health care premiums collected by the companies and/or the government (or passed on to the government?) If the tax revenues start immediately, how can they be counted in whatever numbers being used by the CBO? I mean, I assume the CBO used numbers already existing, from when Obama took office to whenever the report was published. Are those health care taxes being included? From what you're saying, it doesn't sound like it's possible.

I said things would be vastly different. I don't make any assertions on whether they would have been necessarily better or even involve less spending.

True, my bad. But the implications of the question of comparing Bush to Obama and "different" is that it would have been better, since no one has said "It probably would have been the same under Bush". All you guys are doing is giving the "negatives" of the Obama administration so far.

 

[DarthFerret]

If someone could show me a definate positive, then I would acknowledge it (as long as it was really a positive). However, one of my favorite things about Obama's "first 100 days" was that he really did not DO anything. That was kind of a positive to me. By the way, not trying to change the subject too far..but where is all the CHANGE that we were supposed to see? Did he mean change a moon mission to a mars mission?

 

[Spiderman]

As a comparison ,what did Bush do during his first 100 days?

What kind of change were you supposed to see? And was it promised in the first 100 days?

Here's a positive: The US is pulling out of Iraq.

 

[EricBess]

So are the health care premiums collected by the companies and/or the government (or passed on to the government?) If the tax revenues start immediately, how can they be counted in whatever numbers being used by the CBO? I mean, I assume the CBO used numbers already existing, from when Obama took office to whenever the report was published. Are those health care taxes being included? From what you're saying, it doesn't sound like it's possible.

The CBO's job is to give budget estimates on whatever legislation is placed before them. In this case, they were given legislation that included 1) 10 years of collecting revenue, and 2) 6 years of program spending. I don't know the details of either the revenues or the spending, but If you have to collect for 10 years to pay for 6 so that you can keep the estimate under 100 billion (if I remember correctly, that was the number they were shooting for), then what happens when you the next 6 years of revenues only pay for 6 years of spending? The method was manipulative and not sound.

True, my bad. But the implications of the question of comparing Bush to Obama and "different" is that it would have been better, since no one has said "It probably would have been the same under Bush". All you guys are doing is giving the "negatives" of the Obama administration so far.

The economy is in shambles and there is evidence to suggest that Obama's actions as president are directly impacting its ability to recover. In terms of economic recovery, I think Obama is indeed doing a terrible job. I don't believe that it would have been the same under Bush, but since I don't know, I can't make any comparison. Personally, I think Obama is well-intentioned, but his policies are misguided.

It seems like you feel like we don't like Obama so we are going out of our way to find bad things. That isn't the case at all. There are bad things going on and there is evidence to suggest that Obama's policies are not helping to improve things and are likely making things worse. I am not attempting to make any comparisons to Bush. Bush is not the president and the situation when Bush was elected was different. One of the things that has really frustrated me about the Obama administration (not necessarily Obama himself, though he has done this) is that there are plenty of people who are ready to attribute anyone disagreeing with his policies to racism. If you don't agree with my opinion, then that's fine, but please don't claim that my opinion is based on personal dislike of the individual rather than a genuine disagreement with policy.

 

[Spiderman]

The CBO's job is to give budget estimates on whatever legislation is placed before them.

Budget estimates don't sound like what DF was talking about when he said spending rose by 21.4%. That sounds like a comparison of some time period to some time period.

The economy is in shambles and there is evidence to suggest that Obama's actions as president are directly impacting its ability to recover. In terms of economic recovery, I think Obama is indeed doing a terrible job.

I think Obama was stuck between a rock and a hard place. He either let the banks and the insurance firms go under or bail them out (I assume that's what you're talking about - if not, please clarify). He had financial advisors telling him (probably) that either solution sucked, but the bailout was the "least" painful. What would have happened had he chose the former?

One of the things that has really frustrated me about the Obama administration (not necessarily Obama himself, though he has done this) is that there are plenty of people who are ready to attribute anyone disagreeing with his policies to racism. If you don't agree with my opinion, then that's fine, but please don't claim that my opinion is based on personal dislike of the individual rather than a genuine disagreement with policy.

I'm not sure where THAT came from, but I don't believe I nor anyone has claimed that your opinion is based on personal dislike.

Since you brought it up though, I don't believe he has called his dissenters racists *first* unless they started it. In fact, he fired the HUD director for supposedly being a racist based on a clip from some presentation, although it later turned out she wasn't.

You may be frustrated, but the opposite holds true as well - detractors calling his supporters racist. It goes both ways.