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

1. Feb 7, 2005

### chroot

Staff Emeritus
...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 [Broken]

Thanks for voting Bush, you idiots!

- Warren

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
2. Feb 7, 2005

### 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...

3. Feb 7, 2005

### Townsend

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

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
4. Feb 7, 2005

### JasonRox

We all know who you voted for.

5. Feb 7, 2005

### chroot

Staff Emeritus

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?
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:
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

Last edited: Feb 7, 2005
6. Feb 7, 2005

### Greg Bernhardt

woohoo I'm an idiot

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

7. Feb 7, 2005

### chroot

Staff Emeritus
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

8. Feb 7, 2005

### Greg Bernhardt

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

9. Feb 7, 2005

### chroot

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

- Warren

10. Feb 7, 2005

### 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?

11. Feb 7, 2005

### Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
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.

12. Feb 7, 2005

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
YOU??? :surprised :surprised :surprised

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

13. Feb 7, 2005

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. 14. Feb 7, 2005 ### Townsend 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.

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

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

Last edited: Feb 7, 2005
15. Feb 7, 2005

### GENIERE

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.

...

16. Feb 7, 2005

### chroot

Staff Emeritus
GENIERE,

Why would I care what my engineer peers voted?

- Warren

17. Feb 7, 2005

### GENIERE

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

18. Feb 7, 2005

### chroot

Staff Emeritus
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

19. Feb 7, 2005

### Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
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.

20. Feb 7, 2005

### Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
: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).