President Obama unveiled his budget last week and, predictably, the right went ape shit. The Times has a very detailed analysis of how the money is going to be spent. Click here to check it out. So, my first question to my fiscally conservative colleagues is this: what do you think about the 738 billion that is going to be spent on defense?
Personally, I don't have a problem with it. Defense spending creates jobs in addition to the very obvious funds we need to finish the job in AfPak. What I guess I'm curious about is the fact that defense spending represents one of the two largest chunks of money. If it was removed, would the classic liberal be happy? Or is it just the entitlement programs that are the problem?
I guess I'm trying to figure out why it's OK to defend our citizens against attacks-both foreign and domestic but it's not OK to defend them against pneumonia. This pathological hatred of the government, that we see from folks like the Tea Party people, doesn't make any sense when you seriously consider how our government is defined and how our culture has evolved.
34 comments:
Our federal govt is defined to be one of limited and enumerated powers. It even has a mechanism built in for changing that as times change. But oddly, liberals/progressives never want to amend the Constitution to legitimately empower the govt to do all the things they want govt to do - now why IS that? Could it be they lack the confidence that enough people would support that kind of govt? Do they realize that each time they enable an over-reaching govt, some day, the opposite party will do the same (in a different direction)?
No group of politicians (of whatever ideological stripe or partisan color) will ever be serious about managing the budget until they do two things: 1) take on entitlements and 2) divest themselves of earmarks. Of the two, the latter is infinitely easier (but necessary to demonstrate an adult understanding that the budget is not the family cookie jar). Ross Perot and Warren Buffett both collect Social Security and are covered by Medicare. Does that really make sense to anyone? Explain to me why they should be entitled to that.
"President Obama unveiled his budget last week and, predictably, the right went ape shit."
And predictably, you and the other lefty morons are too stupid to be outraged.
"I guess I'm trying to figure out why it's OK to defend our citizens against attacks-both foreign and domestic but it's not OK to defend them against pneumonia."
It's called our Constitution. You ought to read it sometime and figure out why dolts like you are confused about people resisting government growth. Geez, you have been given ample evidence and constant reminders by dozens of people of years of posting drivel like this and you still don't get it? Explain to me how you are seriously considering our government definition in relation to how our culture has evolved. What does that even mean?
Juris, I completely agree with you on number two...it stinks! Ok, I just had to say that. Every politician does it and if people took the time to see where money goes, they would be sick to their stomach.
Entitlements is a tougher nut to crack but I do see the benefit in reducing these programs. The question is what do you put in its place to maintain social cohesion?
6Kings, it means that I think that defending against pneumonia is just as essential as defending against attacks. When was the last time you read the Constitution? Start with the part regarding "promoting the General Welfare." Isn't being healthy part of that?
You also might want to consider Article I, section 8.
"promoting the General Welfare" is not one of Congress' explicit grants of power (Art I, Sec 8). Nor in that day did it mean anything like 'create a cradle to grave welfare state'.
For the most part, you protect yourself from pneumonia. You don't need the govt to do that for you. In fact, there is really no way the govt can keep you from getting pneumonia if you do dumb things.
Well, the most obvious thing I can think of to bite into entitlements is to means-test them. That way, it ceases to be an "entitlement" and instead is treated as what it really is.
Why don't you offer up your specific opinions of what you read the budget instead of playing gotcha. Who cares how the out-of-power party reacts to it. I want to know specific, detailed liberal opinions on this budget. Not that big of a request is it?
"it's OK to spend billions to defend our citizens against terrorism, but it's not OK to defend them against pneumonia."
Mark, hope you don't mid the paraphrase, but I am going to have a T-Shirt made that says the above statement. You are RIGHT ON TARGET!
Thanks for making my day!
Regards,
The "other" JC
Re: Previous post:
Forgive the typo, obviously I meant "mind the paraphrase" NOT "mid the paraphrase"! Really need typing lessons AND a new laptop (my keys stick, don't register taps, etc. - NOT an excuse for failure to proofread, just reality...).
"JC"
James Madison on the "General Welfare" clause:
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
In other words, abusing the General Welfare clause rips the heart out of the Constitution, leading to exactly the type of government the architects of the Constitution were trying to prevent.
You probably just killed this thread Ed. Asking them to post their opinions on something has the same effect. Boo-ya.
Common theme on here lately...the other day we got "people who call themselves patriotic are so virulently against helping other Americans stay healthy" from blk and now we get "I think that defending against pneumonia is just as essential as defending against attacks. When was the last time you read the Constitution?".
Last time I read the constitution I didn't see the word pneumonia in there at all. Probably comes down to the whole role of government debate. I'm not against helping other people stay healthy...I just don't think that's the governments job. It is the governments job to defend us against attacks. I haven't seen any writings by the founders that said the government is supposed to prevent us from getting sick. I bet I could find all kinds of cool stuff to cram under the umbrella of "promote the general welfare". I'll just convince myself that I deserve it, that it's my right to have it, and that someone out there should give it to me for free. What a plan!!!!
"I'll just convince myself that I deserve it, that it's my right to have it, and that someone out there should give it to me for free. What a plan!!!!"
If they think that they have some sort of "right" to take things from someone else just because they think they deserve it (or they've pulled a "right" to have it out of some orifice or other), then they should show up at my house to collect it personally, and dispense with the underpaid middleman (i.e., government flunky). I have the cure for that idea, and I'm willing to share it with them.
"Why don't you offer up your specific opinions of what you read the budget instead of playing gotcha?"
"Defense spending creates jobs in addition to the very obvious funds we need to finish the job in AfPak."
Already done, dude. Your turn. Since I know you want to make entitlement cuts, what cuts do you see making in defense spending? The graph Mark provided has several sectors in which you can see how it breaks down. I'd like to know what "other discretionary spending" means. I know it's only 3 billion dollars but still...
Juris, agree with you on the means test thing. What specifically do you have in mind?
Ed, obviously you think that Congress is abusing the general welfare clause. I do as well but for different reasons. Every member of Congress has their little pet projects. Imagine how much we would save if those were taken away.
Last, my question was meant as more of Kohlberg moral dilemma scenario. What constitutes providing for the common defense? Certainly a biological attack is health related. What if there is one and people are sick for years? Should they get government run health care? It was an attack after all. By the way, this is me giving a specific opinion on the 381 billion in Obama's budget on health care. This is the kind of stuff we need.
Ed, you do think that you have the right to take something from someone else...their sexual preference. You would vote in favor of a ban on gay marriage, correct? In addition, don't you also think that you have the right to sit on judgment on someone who engages in pre-marital sex? Sure, you let them have it but then condemn them to hell unless they repent.
Dick, I was typing when you made your comment.
Isn't that part of the spending freeze? Discretionary spending? I'm not sure.
Already done dude? What a laugh. After all the opposition I have read on this blog to the Military Industrial Complex and now we hear that spending $$ on the Defense industry because it creates jobs is all of a sudden a good thing?
It's a nuanced thing, last. Remember the grays of life? The military is one of the leading organizations in the country for breast cancer research. That part of the spending is fine. The part where open up the check books to buddies and wage an unnecessary war for purposes purely composed of greed and power is different issue. I think you'll agree that one is certainly more altruistic and in the spirit of what our military is all about...providing for the common defense of our citizens..in this case, defense against cancer.
Getting back to the budget, under the education quadrant, I think it's necessary to spend 13 billion on special education. Organizations like ARC have nowhere near that level of budget and this money is well spent. Do you agree? My life is personally affected by this.
There is much to say, but I've decided not to bother since you've been busily proving the accuracy of Kevin's latest überpost: What We Got Here is . . . Failure to Communicate
Your bias shielding (you would call it "confirmation bias") is so strong that you can't even seem to recognize the existence of facts or reasonable arguments which contradict your air castles, let alone comprehend or analyze them.
Prove to me that showing you such E V I D E N C E is NOT a waste of time.
However, this is interesting:
"…don't you also think that you have the right to sit on judgment … you let them have it but then condemn them to hell"
Where have I claimed that such authority belongs to me? If it does then do you think it's wise to piss me off? If it doesn't (and it doesn't) then why do claim otherwise, Scarecrow? If there is someone who does have that authority (and there is), then isn't it most reasonable to pay attention to what He has to say on the matter?
It's wildly ironic that you're now reusing the pre-marital sex thing when that topic is one of only two times you've actually admitted to being wrong by admitting that the Bible—specifically God's word in written form— really does condemn pre-marital sex as a sin. Are you now rejecting even that admission? And by doing so, further cementing the conclusion that pointing out facts you don't like (in this case, written words) is a Collossal Waste Of Time?
So let me get this straight. Mark has now pointed out TWO things about the budget (actually repeated the first thing twice) and last says,
"Already done, dude?"
Mark, they are going to rip you no matter what you do. They operate in a reality composed entirely of "attack-kill-anger-hate." Accommodate them as you clearly have and they will NEVER give you any credit.
On the topic of Special Ed, though, I do have a question. Why is it bad when Rahm Emmanuel makes comments about "retards" but not when Rush Limbaugh does.
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/palin-limbaugh-retarded-fine/
Dick, I was making fun of you for saying those 3 words.
Hell, I bet I can find thousands of things to fund and call the funding a "defense against" something and have the military do it.
The only attack and kill I will do in this thread is kill any chance of you responding to me because I'm going to get detailed.
Lets focus first on something I know a bit about: Medicaid funding. The federal government and the states share both funding responsibility and policymaking authority over Medicaid...its a weird combination of several different programs (it delivers shoddy health insurance for the poor, long-term care for a large swath of the elderly, and high-priced services for the disabled) and the arrangement creates the worst of all possible worlds. You see, state governors and state legislatures can expand the program and claim to be bringing more federal dollars into their states but if they end up saving Medicaid money, most of it flows back to Washington. The incentives point in the wrong direction if you ask me because Washington DC can paper over deficits with borrowed money while most states cannot. So when the people you all voted for passed a massive Medicaid bailout of the states in last year’s "stimulus" bill (what a joke), what effectively occurred is that Washington used its borrowing authority to assist states in circumventing their constitutional requirements to enact balanced budgets and the new Obama budget continues the practice to the tune of $25 billion. Most of that amount represents debt that states could not legally issue themselves. It represents Medicaid savings that won’t happen or deferred state tax hikes. It sounds a whole lot like undermining our constitutional government.
The budget will spend lots more on disparate-impact lawsuits at the Justice Department’s civil-rights division. "Goals" and "timetables" for hiring and promoting women and minorities where they are "underrepresented" are set...and the department responsible for enforcing these quotas will enjoy a budget increase of 38 percent, from $82 million to $113 million. In addition, the Justice Department’s proposed budget for the civil-rights division includes an additional $1.5 million and 12 positions (10 attorneys) for an "Employment Initiative" that seems aimed at bringing more disparate-impact employment lawsuits along with $2.1 million and 22 positions (12 attorneys) for "Discrimination in Lending and Foreclosures," likewise for disparate-impact housing lawsuits. More lawsuits are just what this economy needs. I’d like to hear from any of you about the benefits of the disparate-impact approach toward these things. Go.
The proposed spending freeze is a joke. It excludes Defense, Homeland Security and spending on the VA. It excludes all the entitlements, which are 60 percent of the budget. It excludes all past and future stimulus spending…the two thirds of the near trillion-dollar stimulus that has not been spent (why did you folks call is stimulus when most of the money hasn’t been spent yet? Maybe one of you smart people can explain that to me). All of that is excluded. It excludes the $1 trillion that would end up being spent on health care if it had been passed. What it is, is a $15 billion reduction in 2011, a year in which the CBO has announced we are going to have a deficit of $1.35 trillion, which means it lunch money. This isn't a real cut. It's an appearance of cuts. It's a maneuver as a response to what happened in Massachusetts because obama lost the independents by 3-1 and Obama knows independents worry about debt and deficits and spending. So he announces a freeze which is meaningless. Remember, these departments he "froze spending" on just enjoyed a 20 percent increase in spending as a result of what Obama and the Democrats had done in 2009. So you are freezing discretionary spending at an extraordinarily high level. It’s real brave to freeze spending right after you’ve jacked it up 20%. Real tough choice there.
The education quadrant of the budget is a joke too. $1 billion for head start? Since 1965, American taxpayers have "invested" $167 billion in a preschool program that apparently yields no lasting benefits for the children it serves, and now the program could get $1 billion in additional funding. In January, the DHS (which administers Head Start) released the result of their evaluation of the Head Start program and it found that Head Start provided zero lasting benefits to children by the end of first grade. But let's throw another billion into it. Lovely!
$173 billion in spending on college student aid programs? This massive spending increase for college student aid comes in the wake of a 99 percent increase in federal spending on student aid over the past decade. Several economists have argued that generous government subsidies have actually contributed to the college cost problem (college costs have increased 400% since 1982. Perhaps he could solve the college affordability problem through strategies that may actually attempt to lower college costs.
Congrats last, this thread ain't pining for the fiords, it is
D E A D !!!
And you killed it.
Y'know, just for fun, we should do this to every one of M's posts for a couple of weeks. Just pose some good questions and watch all the weak-minded go mute.
"Just pose some good questions and watch all the weak-minded go mute."
You attempted that in the corporate abuse thread, didn't yo-.. oh. I guess that does work.
The thread can go on as long as you want but spouting analysis without any citations will get you nowhere with me. You can start by correcting your error regarding Head Start. First of all, it's administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, not the Department of Homeland Security. Second, you can link ALL of the reports, good and bad, regarding Head Start. You are correct in stating that the Jan 2010 report was a negative one. You conveniently left out that it was from the Heritage Foundation, a VERY biased source.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/bg2363.cfm
So, what I'd like to see all of your sources for this information. I'm not going to "go" (although I kinda did above but that was to prove a point) until I see where you get your information from and it better fucking be unbiased sources.
Maybe the reason they go "mute" is due to the fact they have better things to do with their time than engage someone who clearly spends too much time listening to AM radio and believing everything he or she hears regarding "lawsuits" in this country.
Or, perhaps they are only capable of spurious drive-by postings that have no basis in reality and contribute nothing to the conversation? Hell, even dick does a little better than that from time to time.
Dick Nixon sounds a whole lot like markadelphia - those are the types of things he jots down when he is frustrated.
"Maybe the reason they go "mute" is due to the fact they have better things to do with their time than engage someone who clearly spends too much time listening to AM radio and believing everything he or she hears regarding "lawsuits" in this country."
Better things to do with their time or not, they're still making false statements, having those statements be shown to be absolutely false (if not outright contradictory to prior statements), and then continuing to make them later.
See, I could agree with your assessment, except they disappear precisely when they're asked for evidence to back up their categorical assumptions.
"So, what I'd like to see all of your sources for this information. I'm not going to "go" (although I kinda did above but that was to prove a point) until I see where you get your information from and it better fucking be unbiased sources."
*snort*
Good point rld, dick nixons posts do suddenly look like Markadelphia posts now...the style, the posting of links, the cussing, the problem with bias, etc.
Regarding bias, here is something Geekwitha45 posted on Kevins blog some time back...it unfortunately hasn't make the standard response list yet though..."Folks, I propose Markadelphia technique #11: "You're too biased to hold a competent opinion." Usually shouted in the form of: Confirmation bias! Ingroup bias! Outgroup bias! Essentially, it's an ad-hominem fallacy of overgeneralizing a phenomena and illegitimately applying it to a group as a whole, with the purpose of invalidating anything ever said by a member of the group so invalidated."
I think that's what is going on here. You can't tell us the benefits of the disparate-impact approach, you know that it is a joke to freeze spending right after you’ve jacked it up 20% the year before, and so on. It isn't even a possibility that I, myself, might know a little bit about medicaid funding. It's only a large part of the fucking job that I do every day - trying to get the State of Illinois to release funds to our customers so they can pay their bills is a nightmare because of what Blago did. Combine that with the fact that the states of California and New York are basically bankrupt and you get an education real quick on the ins and outs of medicaid and medicare.
Instead of debating the points, you choose to attack the source. You don't like the data so you are going to try to invalidate the source. I remember the good old days on this blog when pl and I asked for a source on the claim that the Bush administration was planting kiddie p0rn on the computers of their political opponents only to read "I will never reveal my source of this claim. It's up to you to do your own research. Still waiting.....".
You can take your request for sources and stick it. I guess only certain people have to reveal their sources. For the record, that was a typo on my part as I meant to type DHHS.
Not sure why the hatred for the report re: Head Start. Dick, you incorrectly state that the report is from the Heritage.org. That of course is not correct. The report was actually released by HHS, and was simply interpreted in the link you cite. I agree with you when you say there was a great deal of bias. Clearly they focused on the items that support their point of view, as we all do when making an argument. The HHS report itself, however, figures to be biased in favor of the program, if anything, yet the findings are not very good.
Here is the HHS summary for those who can't tear themselves away from AM radio to do a google search:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/impact_study/executive_summary_final.pdf
The source of the other budget information is clear enough - the budget itself. That seems unbiased to me.
Dick Nixon = Markadelphia, and Markadelphia = Truth Girl. So Dick Nixon = Truth Girl, right? It's so hard to keep up with all of these names...
(cue mad scientist laugh)
Yes, they're all me...bwaaahaaahaaa!!!
(cue 1930s organ music)
Meanwhile, back on the planet earth...
Last, dick asked you for cites on your sources. I think that's a fair question. At least he went out and looked up the Jan 2010 report of which you speak. At least PL gave a cite. I actually wasn't sure which report you were talking about...the heritage one or the HHS one.
I will say, Dick, that last does know a lot about funding. He is an authority on it to a certain point. Of course, I'm not going to tell you his real name (just like I have promised not to reveal other people's names here as well-this is an anonymous blog) but last does work at a place that deals with this stuff.
That being said, he also listens to Michael Savage every night so much of his analysis is coloured with that influence.
Savage isn't even on 1280 anymore. They have another show there now and I don't listen anymore at that time of the day as I'm not driving to softball or salsa these days. I'm a lot busier now, as you know.
It was a fair question - a fair question that you had no problem ducking. That's the way you played the game. I have also asked you all to explain the benefits of disparate-impact approach, the benefits of the stimulus bill, the benefits of the cap and trade bill, why congress exempted themselves from the restrictions in the new proposed health care legislation, etc only to be met with silence.
Not one of you has refuted anything I typed in that post.
"The report was actually released by HHS, and was simply interpreted in the link you cite."
This could have been avoided had last put up links to what he was talking about exactly. I can't comment on something unless I see his source of information. You bitch when I don't post-you bitch when I post-not fucking surprising. I'm still waiting for a response from Ed regarding my interrogation comment.
Oh, and, Mark, you spelled "colored" wrong. There is no "u."
"I can't comment on something unless I see his source of information."
You need to see the source of everything before commenting on anything? I guess there is no truth unless it on the internet somewhere. You still haven't commented....then again, commenting to most of you means doing a google search and posting links to other peoples work who know more than you and challenge me to debate them and not you. Keep typing chickenshit.
Makes you wonder how people ever debate face to face without a computer in front of them.
I guess I'd like to see last's citation regarding disparate-impact approach. I honestly don't know that much about it and would welcome an unbiased source to educate me.
Post a Comment