Let's stop helping poor people, veterans, and farmers

[chroot]

...and spend the money on bull**** "homeland security" instead.

That's Bush's new plan to rescue the country from the impending economic disaster caused by his absurd deficit.

In the most ironic cluster**** I've ever witnessed in this repulsive administration, veterans serving today in Bush's war machine will now have to pay part of their own medical bills when they get home.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-07-voa28.cfm

Thanks for voting Bush, you idiots!

- Warren

 

[wasteofo2]

We'll see what happens when America strays away from FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society programs, people will come runnig back to the Democrats...

 

[Townsend]

...and spend the money on bull**** "homeland security" instead.

That's Bush's new plan to rescue the country from the impending economic disaster caused by his absurd deficit.

In the most ironic cluster**** I've ever witnessed in this repulsive administration, veterans serving today in Bush's war machine will now have to pay part of their own medical bills when they get home.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-07-voa28.cfm

Thanks for voting Bush, you idiots!

- Warren

Having lived in the Midwest for a long time I would say the best thing to do for farmers would be to remove the price floor put on crops. That would end up putting some farmers out of business but that is capitalism. Then there would be no need to subsidize farmers because the market would be in equilibrium. As far as I know most farmers are subsidized based on amount of farmland that is left unfarmed. With a price floor in place farmers always produce more crops than are sold and so the government buys the surplus up and then has to be very careful about what it does with that extra food. If it just gives it away then the market will be taken out of equilibrium and it will hurt farmers too much. You see the reason farmers are getting subsidized in the first place is so that the government will not have to buy so much surplus food created by its price floor.

Why should they even have that price floor in the first place? Take it away and most of those problems are solved.

As far as veterans are concerned, I am one and I am not sure what you are saying. In the link you posted I did not see anything about any changes to my benefits. As far as active duty benefits are concerned, it would be impossible to make someone on active duty pay for their own health care. The most they could do would be to increase the cost of family insurance. In a lot of cases they this would only affect higher ranked personnel who more often than not get better health care provided by the spouse’s health care providers anyways. In any case I am willing to bet that never happens because that would affect retention too much.

As far as poor people are concerned, I don’t know what to say except that we need to get the economy back on track so they can make more money. That way the money we have going to welfare will not be spread so thin and it won’t affect poor families as much.

I personally think that if Kerry was elected that things would be worse than with the crappy president we have now. In the future I plan to vote strictly libertarian. But the best thing about it is that no matter what, next election both the republicans and the Democrats will have new candidates for president. Hopefully the GOP will have better options for everyone when that time comes. Either way I think the libertarian party needs to start gaining some momentum and so that is were my vote will go.

Regards

 

[JasonRox]

Having lived in the Midwest for a long time I would say the best thing to do for farmers would be to remove the price floor put on crops. That would end up putting some farmers out of business but that is capitalism. Then there would be no need to subsidize farmers because the market would be in equilibrium. As far as I know most farmers are subsidized based on amount of farmland that is left unfarmed. With a price floor in place farmers always produce more crops than are sold and so the government buys the surplus up and then has to be very careful about what it does with that extra food. If it just gives it away then the market will be taken out of equilibrium and it will hurt farmers too much. You see the reason farmers are getting subsidized in the first place is so that the government will not have to buy so much surplus food created by its price floor.

Why should they even have that price floor in the first place? Take it away and most of those problems are solved.

As far as veterans are concerned, I am one and I am not sure what you are saying. In the link you posted I did not see anything about any changes to my benefits. As far as active duty benefits are concerned, it would be impossible to make someone on active duty pay for their own health care. The most they could do would be to increase the cost of family insurance. In a lot of cases they this would only affect higher ranked personnel who more often than not get better health care provided by the spouse’s health care providers anyways. In any case I am willing to bet that never happens because that would affect retention too much.

As far as poor people are concerned, I don’t know what to say except that we need to get the economy back on track so they can make more money. That way the money we have going to welfare will not be spread so thin and it won’t affect poor families as much.

I personally think that if Kerry was elected that things would be worse than with the crappy president we have now. In the future I plan to vote strictly libertarian. But the best thing about it is that no matter what, next election both the republicans and the Democrats will have new candidates for president. Hopefully the GOP will have better options for everyone when that time comes. Either way I think the libertarian party needs to start gaining some momentum and so that is were my vote will go.

Regards

We all know who you voted for.

 

[chroot]

As far as veterans are concerned, I am one and I am not sure what you are saying.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politic...0,932964.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Basically, you'll have to start paying $250 per year to get veteran's benefits, and you'll have to start paying more for your prescriptions and doctor's visits.

Admittedly, $20 a month is not a crippling financial hardship for most people, but it opens a Pandora's box. The government is now willing to charge its own soldiers for their future medical care. That absolutely appals me. What's in store for the future? $500 per year? $2,000 per year?

As far as poor people are concerned, I don’t know what to say except that we need to get the economy back on track so they can make more money. That way the money we have going to welfare will not be spread so thin and it won’t affect poor families as much.

Oh? I'm sure that's Bush's plan -- he's going to use that money for an investment, turn our economy right around and refund those peoples' food stamps with the proceeds the first chance he gets. :rofl: Meanwhile, he's asking for a "meager" 5% increase in defense spending to belabor his abject failure in the middle east. He defends this request by saying it wasn't as much as he originally wanted! :rofl:

I personally think that if Kerry was elected that things would be worse than with the crappy president we have now.

Kerry would not likely have gone down as one of the best American presidents, particularly considering the miserable conditions he would have accepted at his inaguration. On the other hand, Bush is almost assuredly going to be remembered as one of history's worst presidents.

To make it all more obscene, sociological research seems to support the notion that the average Bush supporter was less well-informed about world events than was the average Kerry supporter. In a nutshell, he rode on the Moron Party.

- Warren

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Thanks for voting Bush, you idiots!

woohoo I'm an idiot

In a nutshell, he rode on the Moron Party.

yay I'm less informed and part of the moron party

 

[chroot]

You can't fight statistics, Greg. Perhaps you had good reasons to vote for Bush, but, last November, the average Bush supporter did not.

- Warren

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

statistics

Alot of statistics is far from truth, they only suggest a pattern, there are so many errors and biases that must be accounted for.

 

[chroot]

I'd be happy to call it a pattern, then.

- Warren

 

[the number 42]

Lets take an honesty check here; wouldn't it be so nice if there was a moral way we could just kill the poor?

 

[quantumdude]

Lets take an honesty check here; wouldn't it be so nice if there was a moral way we could just kill the poor?

That would be everyone. Kill off the lowest percentile, then all of a sudden those in the second lowest percentile are the poorest, on and on right up to Bill Gates.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

woohoo I'm an idiot

YOU?

You could knock me over with a feather. I thought you were a liberal!
How could you?

 

[Bystander]

http://www.newsday.com/news/politic...0,932964.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Basically, you'll have to start paying $250 per year to get veteran's benefits, and you'll have to start paying more for your prescriptions and doctor's visits.

Admittedly, $20 a month is not a crippling financial hardship for most people, but it opens a Pandora's box. The government is now willing to charge its own soldiers for their future medical care. That absolutely appals me. What's in store for the future? $500 per year? $2,000 per year?(snip)

From the link: "He asks veterans who have the highest incomes among those seeking VA health care and who do not have service-connected illnesses or injuries to pay a $250 annual fee."

Retirees? Plus spouses, plus dependents, plus their survivors --- plus a lot of politicians. Not a problem. These people have been standing in line ahead of GIs for years, cutting the troops OFF from medical care.

 

[Townsend]

Basically, you'll have to start paying $250 per year to get veteran's benefits, and you'll have to start paying more for your prescriptions and doctor's visits.

No I won't! I can tell that you have no idea how veterans benefits work and that is ok but in a nutshell this will not affect very many of the people who actually need it.

He asks veterans who have the highest incomes among those seeking VA health care and who do not have service-connected illnesses or injuries to pay a $250 annual fee. Bush also wants to increase prescription drug co-payments for such veterans from $7 to $15 for a 30-day drug supply. More than 2 million veterans could be affected.

If I am seeking health care at a local VA hospital and I make a lot of money then I will have to pay this extra 250.00 dollars. I asked and this will not affect me at all. In fact I am guessing that I would have to be making over 20K a year in taxable income, don't quote me on that cause it was only an educated guess, for this to affect me. The fact that all my income is tax free makes it so I basically show 0 income per year. I qualify for the maximum number of bennies and yet I still make over 20K a year. There are about 350 vets like me at my school who are getting pretty much the same deal as me. I should know because I work in the Veterans affairs office for my VA work study.

Realistically I could afford to pay 250 a year for VA health care but I don't have to. I would think that most of the people who use this service are retired vets who are a lot better off financially than you might think. From what I am reading the people who show finical need will not have to be concerned with this anyhow.

Basically what I am saying is that while this will affect some 2 million vets, from my experience this will really not be a major problem for all or nearly all of them. What you are reading sounds a lot worse than it really is, at least as far as the vet thing is concerned. I would bet money that you will not hear any complaints from vets about this happening. At most you might find some guy or gal interviewed on TV who when asked about it says, yeah it kind of sucks I guess.

And by the way this will have NO effect on active duty people coming home from Iraq. They will not have to worry about this thing until AFTER they are discharged from active duty which for most of them will not be for at few more years.

The government is now willing to charge its own soldiers for their future medical care. That absolutely appals me. What's in store for the future? $500 per year? $2,000 per year?

Then you should have been appalled long before this because this is nothing new.

Oh? I'm sure that's Bush's plan -- he's going to use that money for an investment, turn our economy right around and refund those peoples' food stamps with the proceeds the first chance he gets. :rofl: Meanwhile, he's asking for a "meager" 5% increase in defense spending to belabor his abject failure in the middle east. He defends this request by saying it wasn't as much as he originally wanted! :rofl:

If the economy improves then less people will be unemployed and wages will be higher. The money that is going into the welfare system will then have fewer people to be divided up amongst. That means they could cut spending in welfare without affecting anyone in a negative manner. That is all I was saying. I have no idea what you’re going on about up there. But if you are entertained enough to be --> :rofl: ing then please feel free to continue enjoying yourself. But it certainly did not address anything I said.

Now as far as your comments about GWB’s exuberant spending, I have to agree with you that it is disgusting. I also understand that we are at war and it really is to be expected. Weather or not we should have ever went to war is another debate that has been going on since this whole thing started and I see no reason to even go there.

Thank you everyone for all of your replies

T

 

[GENIERE]

YOU?

You could knock me over with a feather. I thought you were a liberal!
How could you?

Why are you surprised? Greg doesn’t post often to the political forum, but I recall he proposed a flat or sales tax to replace the income tax, was pro SS reform, and stated prior to the election that he supported President Bush.

Chroot should be aware that the majority of his engineer peers voted for President Bush in 2004.


...

 

[chroot]

GENIERE,

Why would I care what my engineer peers voted?

- Warren

 

[GENIERE]

You're correct, you shouldn't care. Enjoy Canada.

 

[chroot]

Er, yes, because my belief system, family values, cultural tastes, food and beverage preferences, fashion sense -- indeed, my entire existence -- should be based on those of the people who just happen to sit beside me in neighboring cubicles from 9-5, Monday through Friday.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

Quite frankly, I don't see much of a problem with this. They are talking about benefits to cover things aside from service-related illness and injuries. So, if someone goes off to war and comes back with an injury that's causing them lifelong problems, they still get that just as they always have.

Our VA Hospital system is a mess right now. Many have been closed already, and some really are in desperate need of renovation (I know, I work across the street from one and my colleagues have used some of their facilities -- my colleagues have opted to spend the money on building new facilities at our university medical center rather than continue using the VA because it is in horrid condition). I'm not sure the feasibility, but setting up reciprical agreements with university or city hospitals to cover veterans' health care might serve them better than our current VA hospital system, and eliminate the overhead operating costs of maintaining and/or renovating run-down facilities that are far from state-of-the-art. This isn't something I've fully thought through, or even given much thought at all, so might be equally infeasible.

Does anyone know where a full list of the 150 programs Bush is proposing to cut can be found? 150 sounds like a lot to ask for all at once. Maybe that's the goal, ask for 150 and Congress will bargain it down to 75 and everyone walks away happy thinking they've won. But, it could also be a lot of really minor programs, or trimming the fat off of programs known to be running inefficiently. There are so many little pet projects Congress has created that we really should never have started in the first place, but got tacked onto appropriations bills anyway to win votes for the bigger issues.

 

[Moonbear]

YOU?

You could knock me over with a feather. I thought you were a liberal!
How could you?

:rofl: Not everyone is such an extreme liberal or conservative or so vocal about their political views that you can guess how they'll vote; we're still entitled to secret ballots. I have one colleague who I know was a Bush supporter because I didn't really express any views about politics to him, so he assumed that I, like he, was afraid to speak up around all the liberals on the attack pre-election. It's funny how if you keep quiet, people assume you're on their side. I wouldn't blame Greg at all for keeping quiet with the way some people were practically frothing at the mouth before the election (on both sides).

 

[GENIERE]

... I wouldn't blame Greg at all for keeping quiet with the way some people were practically frothing at the mouth before the election (on both sides).

He didn't keep quiet.

Re: VA hospitals, I concur. Vets need specialized treatment that is not available in a civilian medical center. I believe the system should be shut down and VA funds pay the civilian system to provide staff and facilities for the vets’ special needs.

 

[Kerrie]

The government is now willing to charge its own soldiers for their future medical care. That absolutely appals me. What's in store for the future? $500 per year? $2,000 per year?

Chroot, do you really have an idea of what other (non-Vets) pay for health insurance premiums? I pay for 4 healthy people $6780 per year in premiums. It is all pre-tax, yet, I am still happy to even have quality health care. I didn't vote for Bush, but just because I didn't vote for him doesn't mean I will automatically be against everything he does as president, although compared to Clinton, I don't like what he has done to our country.

From the article:

But the budget also includes a proposal to cut about $32 billion from the government-funded food stamp program which benefits poor Americans.

You would be amazed at how much some people get a month for food stamps, and what they end up spending their food stamps on. I have known people who legitamately needed the help, and then I have known people who think getting their food stamps are a way of life indefinitely.

It takes aim at politically-popular public health programs, for example saving billions by proposing cuts in Medicaid, a program that helps the poor.

Didn't medicare just approve Viagra as a drug they will cover? As a taxpayer, I certainly don't like knowing my tax dollars go to help a 60 year old man have sexual functions of a 25 year old.

Facetiousness aside, I think there are many social programs that can be trimmed, but not necessarily to fund a war (my opinion).

 

[Moonbear]

Vets need specialized treatment that is not available in a civilian medical center.

I've heard this argument before, but have never heard of an example given. What specialized treatment would not be available in a civilian medical center?

Within walking distance from the VA here are four other hospitals, one of which is the university hospital which includes a level one trauma center, stroke teams, burn units, and even trains Air Force medics in trauma and critical care. In addition to those nearby, we have another hospital a short drive away that provides more long-term rehabilitation and psychiatric care (for example, this is where patients are moved to recover from severe head injuries following attempted suicide or car accidents). Of course, funding for this hospital has been in jeopardy as well, so shifting some Federal money there to cover long-term care of veterans would help both the veterans as well as civilian patients. University hospitals are more prevalent than VA hospitals and provide all the cutting edge technology you can dream of because that's where the research is being done to develop it. Certainly in this area, the VA seems entirely redundant with the other hospitals surrounding it, and substandard compared to them as well.

Now there may be areas where the VA isn't surrounded by so many redundant facilities, so it might make sense to evaluate these on a case by case basis. When it's the only hospital that can provide a certain level of care within a certain distance, spend the money to renovate and update. When it's redundant with nearby hospitals, shunt some of the money in cooperative agreements with the other hospitals. The university hospitals already have an influx of Federal funding for research, so it seems to make sense to get more bang for your buck and piggyback off their continuing expansion to provide for the veterans as well. Of course, a lot of the more routine care can be done absolutely anywhere, so it's silly to make the veterans travel so far to a VA hospital when they could get the same treatment at their local medical center for those more common needs.

 

[GENIERE]

QUOTE=Moonbear] …I've heard this argument before, but have never heard of an example given. What specialized treatment would not be available in a civilian medical center?

Moonbear- I’m almost in total agreement with your statements. I’m particularly concerned with the mental health of the vets. I would think (guess) proper treatment of battlefield psychosis is only available via a small number of physicians. Many injuries are life long afflictions requiring oft-repeated visits to the VA centers. The shared camaraderie with other vets during these visits I think is a very important part of their mental well-being. Years ago, on some trips to the VA, I noted that the Vets roam around, inside, outside, play cards, take a sip out of a brown bag, grab a smoke (odd smelling smoke) while carrying an O2 bottle; they’re everywhere but in their room. I think many are there just because they know a buddy is there, someone they met there.

Other than that, I see no reason for their existence except as you stated and in countries where we have permanent bases.

..

 

[vanesch]

I've heard this argument before, but have never heard of an example given. What specialized treatment would not be available in a civilian medical center?

Lobotomy ?

 

[JasonRox]

Enjoy Canada while it lasts because it won't be like this forever. This country is already falling apart with the majority of Canadians agreeing with private health care.

We are the first G-8 country to start paying down their debt (according to the news), and people seem to think its a good idea to spend all that money we just payed down.

Quite personally, I love Canada (my country) and hockey, but I don't think I will live here forever.

Note: Quebec is most certainly separating from Canada, and that is a really good option for me. They love free health care, they embrace a relaxed lifestyle, and they have the best hockey players.

 

[Grogs]

You would be amazed at how much some people get a month for food stamps, and what they end up spending their food stamps on. I have known people who legitamately needed the help, and then I have known people who think getting their food stamps are a way of life indefinitely.

This is getting a little better at least. The new credit-card things they're using (instead of paper food-stamps) makes it a lot harder to defraud the system. No selling food-stamps for 25 cents on the dollar or buying a stick of bubble gum with a food-stamp dollar and then using the 3 quarters in change to buy a 40. I think this is the crux of the problem though. I wouldn't mind contributing a portion of my salary every month to help those who are truly in need. Unfortunately, for every person in need, there are probably 2 that just want to take advantage of the system. :grumpy:

As for the VA benefits, I don't imagine it would make much of a difference. Most people who can afford a type of healthcare other than the VA system will do so anyway. There are just too many problems with the VA healthcare system to make most people voluntarily seek it.

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear- I’m almost in total agreement with your statements. I’m particularly concerned with the mental health of the vets. I would think (guess) proper treatment of battlefield psychosis is only available via a small number of physicians.

This may have been the case years ago, but I think post-traumatic stress disorder is quite well recognized now and there are others aside from vets who suffer from this. However, even if there are only a few psychiatrists specializing in these particular disorders, relocating them down the street to another medical center/hospital would be the easiest of changes since psychiatry really doesn't require specialized equipment.

Many injuries are life long afflictions requiring oft-repeated visits to the VA centers. The shared camaraderie with other vets during these visits I think is a very important part of their mental well-being. Years ago, on some trips to the VA, I noted that the Vets roam around, inside, outside, play cards, take a sip out of a brown bag, grab a smoke (odd smelling smoke) while carrying an O2 bottle; they’re everywhere but in their room. I think many are there just because they know a buddy is there, someone they met there.

This is something I would question. I'm sure that you're right, this is a reason vets congregate there, to socialize, but is this something that is actually helpful for them? I think there was a time, especially with the Vietnam Vets, when they did need some comraderie of fellow vets because they were facing such blatant discrimination from civilians who blamed them for the war. However, clinging together like that only encourages living in the past and provides an excuse for not assimilating back into society, thus keeping themselves as outcasts. Surely they could join their local VFW for the same comraderie if that's important. I lean toward thinking their mental recovery may be better if the person they were running into during repeated hospital visits for therapy wasn't a vet, so they would talk about other things in life aside from war. I wonder if anyone has really looked into that with respect to recovering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Does it help to be around others who had a similar experience, or is it better to not be around people continually reminding you of that experience?

On a similar vein, it also seems it would be a burden on the vets and/or their families to have to continue to visit a VA facility that may not be very close to home when they need long-term outpatient care if they could get the same care closer to home.

About the only issue I can see arising would be a possible necessity for some physicians to have security clearance to treat certain patients (for example, a psychiatrist or anesthesiologist treating someone who was privy to top secret information), but it seems this could be accomplished with a handful of facilities, or simply ensuring other hospitals in a few locations hire such staff.

 

[GENIERE]

Moonbear-I'm for it. As soon as I finish this response, I'm E-mailing Don Rumsfeld, join me.

 

[russ_watters]

woohoo I'm an idiot

Nice to have you on the team, Greg.

 

[the number 42]

woohoo I'm an idiot

Nice to have you on the team, Greg.

If Team Idiot doesn't have a logo yet, can I respectfully suggest one of these?
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushchimpanzee.htm

 

[revelator]

majority of Canadians agreeing with private health care

Sorry to runoff topic here but...are you sure this is true JasonRox. From my experience and opinion gathering it seems to be the opposite, with the exception of Alberta.

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear-I'm for it. As soon as I finish this response, I'm E-mailing Don Rumsfeld, join me.

LOL! Seriously, I've only been pulling that stuff off the top of my head. There must be things I've overlooked that would complicate the issue (one major one would be getting university administrators to go along with the plan, but as long as it's a public institution and Federal funding is used as the bargaining chip, I think they could be persuaded). Is there some reason this wouldn't work, some hidden cost I haven't considered, etc?

 

[GENIERE]

LOL! Seriously, I've only been pulling that stuff off the top of my head. There must be things I've overlooked that would complicate the issue (one major one would be getting university administrators to go along with the plan, but as long as it's a public institution and Federal funding is used as the bargaining chip, I think they could be persuaded). Is there some reason this wouldn't work, some hidden cost I haven't considered, etc?

I did E-mail Rumsfeld. Public or private who cares? Since I'm a tech type guy, I never got past middle management in the three hospitals I worked for and was never interested in the finance side. I'm sure the bueaucrats can (falsely) find many reasons for it not working.

 

[tribdog]

YOU?

You could knock me over with a feather. I thought you were a liberal!
How could you?

power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Greg was a card carrying liberal. Then he started PF, started raking in the dough. Started looking at tax breaks for the wealthy. all you people who registered and paid your nominal fee are too blame.