Saturday, December 24, 2005

Thread Highjacker mars Christmas Celebration

Over at Freedom Eden (see link) Mary posted a Christmas tribute featuring a beautiful portrait of the Madonna and Child and the lyrics from the song "Mary Did You Know?"As happens on blogs, a "very passionate and compassionate" young man barged onto the scene railing:


"...you actually think that cutting medicare, cutting the enforcement of child care payments, cutting student loans and food stamps helps people!"
His rhetoric made for good drama but according to the Congressional Budget Office and the House of Representatives, here are the facts:


Spending on food stamps went from $29 billion in 2004 to $33 billion in 2005 and is projected to remain there through 2009.

Federal Child Support Enforcement spending increased from $1 billion (2000) to $4 billion (2005)

Medicaid spending increased $89.1 billion (1995) to a projected $193.2 billion in 2006. No cuts in Medicaid spending are proposed. President Bush has proposed to cut the annual growth rate from 7.6% to 7.3%.

Foster Care and Adoption Assistance spending increased from $5.7 billion in 2000 to $6.8 billion in 2005.

All forms of Federal Student aid have gone from about $57 billion in 2000 to $90 billion in 2005. Pell Grant Funding has increased 10.3% per year since 2000. No child left behind has grown 40%. Secondary Education spending has increased from $422.8 billion in 2000 to $537 billion in 2005.

Spending on Veterans has doubled since 1995.

When confronted with the facts, the left resorts to the class warfare rhetoric with "Republicans are giving all the tax cuts to the rich. You're greedy and the poor are suffering. Raise taxes, spend more on welfare and less on war."

The Heritage Foundation says:

Even with the historic reform in 1996, the welfare system is expensive and growing. In the nearly 40 years since President Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty, the nation has spent $8.29 trillion (in constant 2000 dollars) on means-tested assistance: food, housing, medical care, and social services for poor and low-income Americans. Welfare spending dwarfs many other government expenditures. In recent years, for example, the nation has spent $1.45 on means-tested welfare for every $1.00 spent on national defense.
Even after spending over $8 trillion, the poor are still with us. Conservatives think the massive welfare spending has been counter productive and only served to keep generations of Americans poor and on the Democrat plantation.

There are no proposed budget cuts. Only cuts in the rate of annual growth. In fact, its the out-of-control spending that worries conservatives. The wild spending by Congress and the President have gained them no new supporters from the left and needs to stop, now!

The Center on Budget and Priorities breaks down Federal Spending categories as:
41% Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid
14% All other entitlement programs
7% Interest on the National Debt
19% Non Defense Appropriations
20% Defense

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to grow to even greater percentages of the budget in the next decades and unless real reforms are made, could bankrupt the country or raise tax burdens back to levels unseen since just after WWII. Conservatives fear that tax burdens of 50% to 70% of income will remove all incentives for reinvesting income into the economy. If a "rising tide lifts all ships," higher taxer rates could be the falling tide which throws everyone into the mud of a third-rate economy.

Reopening a closed mind takes a long time and a lot of patience. Idealistic young people should be shown the right way with logical arguments in the hope that as they mature, they will see the light.

Older lefties are a different matter.

14 comments:

Pecheur said...

Thanks fur stoppin' by at suthern talk place.

Shore do have sum interestin' thoughts cher.

Come back by when yu kan stay longer. Can I get cha a glass of tea?

Kyle Foley said...

those figures are old, congress is working on new legislation which the house still has to approve to cut those entitlements.

i still would like to hear you justify the following logic: "take a breather, mr bill gates, let the middle class share more of the burden, they have less voting power anyway."

the republican party is a coalition between economic conservatives and social conservatives. to oversimplify, the economic conservatives which are a minority of the party pass a majority of the legislation. ask yourself what has bush done for social conservatives other than banning partial birth abortions and call for a ban on gay rights? the economic conservatives have reduced overtime pay, made is easier for food companies to lie in their advertisments, made it more difficult for seniors to get prescription drugs, cut taxes for the wealthy, reformed energy policy, reformed bankruptcy policy and made it more difficult to bring class action lawsuits to the courts.

Kyle Foley said...

The number of U.N. peacekeeping operations and missions to prevent and stop wars have increased by more than 400 percent since the end of the Cold War.

A major study by the Rand Corp. published this year found that U.N. peace-building operations had a two-thirds success rate.

In the wake of last month's global summit at the United Nations, many critics wrote the United Nations off as an institution so deeply flawed that it was beyond salvation. The analysis and the carefully collated data in the Human Security Report reveal something very different: an organization that, despite its failures and creaking bureaucracy, has played a critical role in enhancing global security.

- andrew mack

Tiger said...

Whoa!

Let's look at all this historically. During Roosevelt's presidency 80% of the GDP was spent on DEFENSE. We're now involved in another World War, a different type of WWar, of course, and DEFENSE spending is relatively low (20%) and SOCIAL spending is very high.

It's a lie to say that the historical trend is anything different. Sure, depending on the year in question, legislation is introduced to "CUT THE INCREASE", not cut the spending on the social programs.

My mother, who's 83, now spends less money on her prescriptions than before (when Clinton was President), so I don't accept the argument that seniors are finding it difficult in this area. This directly due to Bush's programs. Besides, the problem of high drug costs (in America) can be atributed to price fixing by foreign governments and Congress' inability to make a fair trade agreement. (we pay for ALL the R&D here in the U.S.)

As far as the "helping the wealthy" goes; I've never gotten a good job from a poor person, ever! The wealthy in America spread their wealth. This is why our standard of living is so high, for the majority of the people. Look at all the good Bill Gates has done! I think there's some envy showing.

Exactly who did the "Human Security Report"? What study did the RAND Corporation do? Is it possibly America's influence throughout the globe (since WW2) has helped to spread democracy, freedom, and economic stability that helped stop wars? Again, let's look at history. It is the Communists and Socialists who deny freedom that spread the horror of war. Many of these "bad" countries have great influence within the U.N. (Syria on the human rights commission?, please ...)

As we give more sovereignty away to global organizations you'll find fewer and fewer freedoms at home. The LEFT appears to love slavery, as long as they're the Elitists running it.

Kyle Foley said...

As far as the "helping the wealthy" goes; I've never gotten a good job from a poor person, ever!

so is that your justification for being cruel to them?

the wealthy spread their wealth around - what do you think money will dissappear if the lower or middle class has more of the pie?

Is it possibly America's influence throughout the globe (since WW2) has helped to spread democracy, freedom, and economic stability that helped stop wars?

actually 1/3 of all conflicts before 1991 were fueled by the us and russia - proxy wars - vietnam, korea, nicaragua, east timor, el salvador rings a bell?

As we give more sovereignty away to global organizations you'll find fewer and fewer freedoms at home.

isn't that what the anti-constitutionalist said before ratification?

what's wrong with cooperation?

Tiger said...

hold on...

Who's being cruel to the poor? The person who makes it possible to better mankind, or the Jesse Jacksons of the world who attempt to keep the poor "on the plantation"?

It's been shown that help to the poor has increased in this country throughout the last 50+ years, at least. Do you think I'm a guy who was born with a platinum spoon in his mouth? No, as a child I lived in a shotgun shack in the deep south, going to the fields at age 5, working along side with poor southern blacks - the Jesse Jacksons of the world NEVER helped them or me! Republicans helped to pass the Civil Rights Act, not Democrats. Democrats were against it.

The middle class and poor ARE getting more of the pie. And no, not all this "pie" comes from the wealthy. The most millionaries in the country are small business owners who live a middle-class or upper middle-class lifestyle. These hard working people produce wealth for themselves and help others by hiring them.

So... when the U.S. reacts to a threat; such as Russia, Vietnam, Korea, Nicaragua, East Timor, El Salvador, etc. - then it means we caused the war? I'll bet you also think the Europeans were the cause of Muslum aggression during the Crusades? America comes to the aid of others and you blame America? What absolute insanity!

Sovereignty: Did the states/colonies argue that by giving power to the Federal system they would lose sovereignty? YES! ABSOLUTELY! Guess what - they did lose sovereignty!

And, BTW, nothings wrong with cooperation. Cooperation implies give and take on both sides not just in one direction.

Your arguments in general say that we need to help the poor, cooperate with other countries, tax those that nmake more money than others, come to the aid of the downtrodden, etc.

Hey! WE DO AL THAT IN AMERICA! That's what America's all about. We aren't the bad guys. LIBERALISM is just another "-ism" that will be beaten; like, communism, fascism (also known as political correctness), and socialism. You are arguing for things we have in place already. We can always make improvements, of course, but blaming America for the ills of life and the world is simply nonsensical. Why not blame the bad guys? Why not blame the systems that have actually propagated evil - the PC fascism of Hitler and Mussolini, the wrongs of the Catholic church in the dark ages, the atrocities of Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao Se Tung, Karl Lenin, China, the Arab middle east, the North Korean starvation policies, etc.?

Kyle, you're blaming the very people who are working hard for your desires and wishes - all for the power of control over the masses. No, the Republicans aren't perfect. I have many qualms about them. Please look at the November Archives of this BLOG:

Renewing the "Patriot" Act? Let's renew our freedom instead

... it might shed some light.

Tiger said...

oops!, sorry... coorection to comment above...

That would be, Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin - the two names run together in my mind - for obvious reasons! : )

Kyle Foley said...

Who's being cruel to the poor? The person who makes it possible to better mankind, or the Jesse Jacksons of the world who attempt to keep the poor "on the plantation"?

would you like to demonstrate how increasing their tax burden makes it better for mankind. could you also demonstrate how the jesse jacksons of the world keep them on plantations.


It's been shown that help to the poor has increased in this country throughout the last 50+ years, at least.

under george bush their share of the taxe burden has increased.

Do you think I'm a guy who was born with a platinum spoon in his mouth? No, as a child I lived in a shotgun shack in the deep south, going to the fields at age 5, working along side with poor southern blacks - the Jesse Jacksons of the world NEVER helped them or me!
care to back that statement up with facts?


Republicans helped to pass the Civil Rights Act, not Democrats. Democrats were against it.

you're talking about dixicrats - they are no more true democrats than john mccain is a true republican.

The middle class and poor ARE getting more of the pie.

think again - the top 5% own 67% of the wealth and hasn't changed in the last 20 years.

And no, not all this "pie" comes from the wealthy. The most millionaries in the country are small business owners who live a middle-class or upper middle-class lifestyle. These hard working people produce wealth for themselves and help others by hiring them.

so you think the waltons help others by paying them 6 bucks an hour?

So... when the U.S. reacts to a threat; such as Russia, Vietnam, Korea, Nicaragua, East Timor, El Salvador, etc. - then it means we caused the war? I'll bet you also think the Europeans were the cause of Muslum aggression during the Crusades? America comes to the aid of others and you blame America? What absolute insanity!

you call supporting the junta in brazil in 1964 helping the brazilians? that was a military dictatorship that the us backed.



Your arguments in general say that we need to help the poor, cooperate with other countries, tax those that nmake more money than others, come to the aid of the downtrodden, etc.

Hey! WE DO AL THAT IN AMERICA!
o yea? then how do you explain the recent tax cuts to the wealthy and the decision to cut enforcement of child support payments?


That's what America's all about. We aren't the bad guys. LIBERALISM is just another "-ism" that will be beaten;

liberalism is the theory that the present system needs to be improved. conservatism is the theory that the present system need not be changed. neither will ever be beaten.

like, communism, fascism (also known as political correctness), and socialism. You are arguing for things we have in place already. We can always make improvements, of course, but blaming America for the ills of life and the world is simply nonsensical.

did i blame america? please show. i blame the conservative republicans who have a propensity for corporate welfare.

Tiger said...

hmmm.. I have to assume you didn't read the November entry.

Let's see...

would you like to demonstrate how increasing their tax burden makes it better for mankind. could you also demonstrate how the jesse jacksons of the world keep them on plantations.

"Their" tax burden has not increased. ( http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/factsheetwhopaysmostindividualincometaxes.update.pdf ) The most wealthy's has. The increase of tax burden on the wealthy or the poor hinders economic growth. The wealthy have less money to enhance/grow wealth for all and the poor can't drag themselves up by their own bootstraps. New legislation may indeed shift some more responsibility to the poor, but compared to the percentage the wealthy is paying... As for our friend, Jesse. Here's an excerpt from the entry you didn't read:

TOAD SAID:
"A poor black kid would be broke, in jail, and have his credit ruined if the didn't have a powerful rich father to look after him."

I SAID:
...his problems will be his own, none else. Do you think I have emulated my dad? No, I've tried all my life to make it better for my kids than he did for me - not repeat the sin of the father! Understand? You see the difference, TOAD? I'm for self respect and a "you can do it!" attitude. You assign blame and tell people they can never do it. How defeatest that is!

Gee, you had mom and dads help and I didn't, but we both did well? You need to tell people they CAN do it TOAD, not tell them they're stuck on the plantation.

Here's an old southern "truism" concerning the downtrodden, esp. blacks.(my wife is from Chicago, BTW and she agrees with me).

"Up North they love 'em but hate 'em; down South we hate 'em but love 'em".

Strange isn't it? I grew up with blacks - went to school, the fields, and church with them. We live in the same neighborhoods, to this day. Up North you guys segregate into ethnic communities and dare the other to come in. Even now, in 2005, Chi-town is the most difficult place for blacks to find a home.

Your intentions are good, TOAD, but misplaced.


...resuming:
Kyle, the Jesse Jacksons of the world tell people it's someone elses fault, not theirs. Those black kids I grew up with did the same thing I did. We joined the military, we worked hard, we did everything we could to create wealth for ourselves so we could do better than our dads and grandads. 'Ol Jesse was nowhere around - he was raising money for his Rainbow Coalition, involved in Northern cities, not hanging around southern poor people. M.L.K.? - a great man - Jesse? - an opportunist!

under george bush their share of the taxe burden has increased.

...sorry, just wishful thinking - read that link again;

( http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/factsheetwhopaysmostindividualincometaxes.update.pdf )

care to back that statement up with facts?
I never received any aid or monies from anything Jesse did. And no, it wasn't just Dixiecrats:

1) http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110002591
-why the Dems are failing
2)http://www.heritage.org/research/features/issues2004/welfare.cfm#FF
-republican welfare success
3)http://www.internationalsocialist.org/pdfs/democrats_lesserevilism.pdf
...whew! lots of history, but it proves a point. This is a Socialist site, BTW. At least they got their history correct, if you can ignore the propaganda.

think again - the top 5% own 67% of the wealth and hasn't changed in the last 20 years.
...OK, prove it. give me the history, please.

so you think the waltons help others by paying them 6 bucks an hour?
No, I think the Waltons are helping people who had nothing to be something. Why do you think wealth should be instantaneous and not worked for? If I'm dirt poor and I start amking $6.00 an hour, it's a good thing! It helps me rise above the poverty. Minimum wage is not a family salary, anyway (that's another liberal myth).

you call supporting the junta in brazil in 1964 helping the brazilians? that was a military dictatorship that the us backed.
Yes, it was a military junta that the French backed during the Revolutionary War, also. You seem to think that freedom comes easy, or that nothing bad will happen, or that we may back the wrong people (like Castro)? ...time to grow up!

o yea? then how do you explain the recent tax cuts to the wealthy and the decision to cut enforcement of child support payments?
It's already been illustrated that if the rich get richer, we all get richer. This is basic ECONOMY 101. Over-taxing any class reduces wealth across the board. As far as the actual legislation you're talking about? ...show me.

liberalism is the theory that the present system needs to be improved. conservatism is the theory that the present system need not be changed. neither will ever be beaten.
Who said I'm a conservative? I'm no conservative. A conservative wants to "conserve things" - I'm a revolutionary! Both LIBERALISM and CONSERVATISM are means by which the answer is found. LIBERALISM just seems to have more negative aspects; political correctness, government does all, not the person; large oppressive government (yes, some republicans are guilty of this too)... - you didn't read that earlier entry did you?

did i blame america? please show. i blame the conservative republicans who have a propensity for corporate welfare.
The history talked about involved both Dems and Repubs. It's very clear, your rhetoric blames America for the ills mentioned.

... as for corporate welfare? Yes, that's an Oligarthy. You should read that earlier post! : )

Kyle Foley said...

The most wealthy's has. The increase of tax burden on the wealthy or the poor hinders economic growth. The wealthy have less money to enhance/grow wealth for all and the poor can't drag themselves up by their own bootstraps.

so what you think if the wealthy don't have wealth - then no one does? there is a such thing as a middle class.

think again - the top 5% own 67% of the wealth and hasn't changed in the last 20 years.

...OK, prove it. give me the history, please.

wealth distribution

so you think the waltons help others by paying them 6 bucks an hour?
No, I think the Waltons are helping people who had nothing to be something. Why do you think wealth should be instantaneous and not worked for? If I'm dirt poor and I start amking $6.00 an hour, it's a good thing! It helps me rise above the poverty.

what a generous soul you are. funny how walton gets to help someone without any sacrifice.



It's already been illustrated that if the rich get richer, we all get richer. This is basic ECONOMY 101. Over-taxing any class reduces wealth across the board.

try telling that to the coal miners in west virginia in the 1920's - if the wealthy were completely unfettered - none of us would own any of our homes.

As far as the actual legislation you're talking about? ...show me.

just go to the washington post and type budget cuts.

i glanced at your post on the patriot act

Tiger said...

so what you think if the wealthy don't have wealth - then no one does? there is a such thing as a middle class.
The middle class is a direct result of having an upper (wealthy) class. A healthy middle class is capable of producing even more wealth, as described earlier. Why do think communism fails? No middle class, of course. By historical definition, from feudal times to today, the middle class did not prosper until the upper class allowed it. We, you and I, in the middle class (assuming you are) actually owe our existence to the upper class. Here are some upper class fellows who pushed this idea from history - you may have heard of them.

-George Washington
-Ben Franklin
-John Adams
-Theodore Roosevelt
-Franklin Roosevelt
-John F. Kennedy (not Ted, I'm afraid
-George W. Bush!

... sorry Kyle, the rich guys don't cause the worlds problems and being envious of them dosen't "cut it" either.

Wealth Distribution
Ahhh... nice snapshot of 2001. If really shows how the middle class has squandered the wealth they do have! You would think they would use their wealth to increase their income as the rich have done. Perhaps these rich guys know something we don't? So, the charts prove that the higher income folks have more wealth by utilizing their income in a smarter way. Notice how the top 5% of the wealthy make about the same income as the middle class? They must be smarter than us, huh? And you're saying we need to redistribute this income? No way, man! The middle and lower classes are too dumb to increase the wealth like the upper 5% have done! Thanks, Kyle - I have a new respect for the upper 5% now.

what a generous soul you are. funny how walton gets to help someone without any sacrifice.
No sacrifice? You mean Grandpa Walton didn't work his butt off to get Dad Walton set up in the drygoods store? Are you saying that the poor should not sacrifice to get to where the "Waltons" are? You mean, life is a freebee? A give away? WOW! I didn't know that either! Amazing, Kyle! I have discovered I don't have to work for anything. Thanks Jesse - uh, I mean Kyle. I'll just blame everyone else for my situation. : )

try telling that to the coal miners in west virginia in the 1920's - if the wealthy were completely unfettered - none of us would own any of our homes.
Gee... let's see, when has anyone in this BLOG said the wealthy should be completely unfettered? Nobody has said this, Kyle. Let's see, all rich people in the country are responsible for the coal miners in W.V., in the 1920's. HA! The point, Kyle, is that: have the coal miners in W.V. been able to improve their status, over time. Yes! The answer is yes! Let's see, are the blacks still slaves? Why no! ...amazing! Are the Jews still slaves to the Egyptians? Heck no! Is the South still a collection of poor uneducated sharecroppers? Well darn! That's improved also!

Washington Post
a representative sample:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2005/12/piggy_facts.html

... this first one by Emily Messener doesn't show the harm to the poor, she simply states it as fact, but doesn't back it up. When you follow the link to CNN (showing the cuts to the poor) it describes college tuition credits to be allowed! Wow! That helps the middle class. Great!

gee, Kyle. I'm not a member. Why would the Post do that? The Washington Times doesn't.

OK...let's try the LA Times - another LIBERAL paper...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-spend21dec21,1,3350460.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

ahhh... her's one more to your liking. Here's a quote from one of the "LIBERAL" articles:

"The size of the deficit depends on spending and tax revenue. The spending-cut bill would reduce the $1.6 trillion in deficits projected for the next five years by 2.5%. The spending and tax bills combined would increase the deficits by 2%.

Much of the criticism of the measure came from groups speaking for the poor, the elderly and college students.

"The provisions … would cause considerable hardship among low-income families and people who are elderly or have disabilities," said the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Medicaid recipients, particularly those just above the poverty line, would have to pay more for their healthcare or accept fewer medical services. Some could be forced to pay as much as $100 for services that now cost $3, the center said.

For elderly and disabled Medicare recipients, the premium that covers visits to the doctor would be increased.

A previously enacted reduction of 4.4% in the fees received by doctors for treating Medicare patients would be erased.

The bill would also reauthorize the 1996 law that transformed the nation's main welfare program and renamed it Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. In particular, the Congressional Budget Office said it would require the states to impose stricter work obligations on aid recipients. States that provide aid to couples would be hit especially hard by the formula used for determining penalties.

The bill would provide an extra $1 billion for child care for working welfare parents, $7.4 billion less than the Congressional Budget Office estimated would be needed to accommodate the work requirements.

Student loans take the biggest hit in the bill — about $21 billion in cuts, partly offset by $8 billion in new grant money. Students would absorb about 70% of the cuts through higher interest rates upon graduation, said Luke Swarthout, higher education specialist with the state Public Interest Research Group, and banks and other lending agencies would cover the rest."


... OK, reductions in some areas (which would create additional costs to the poor in some cases), some increases in other areas ...
all this apparently only reducing the deficit by .5%
With almost 80% of the budget going to social programs, this is not too bad at all! Heck, I though the saftey net was disappearing from the way you talked! Whew! I'm relieved. It's a shame we can't reduce the deficit more, though.
Sounds like Congress is being very careful, only cutting in areas that will do the least harm. That's terrific! Now, if only the Dems would work with the Repubs to erode the deficit more and save Social Security. : )

Kyle Foley said...

We, you and I, in the middle class (assuming you are) actually owe our existence to the upper class.

you are a traitor to your class. you have been indoctrinated with this conversative propaganda and have been hoodwinked into believing these myths that in affect harm you.

we do not owe our existence to the upper class we've had to fight several wars in order to form a more just and equitable society. the rich have been notorious in their use of force so as to maintain their wealth and not just in america but all over the world.

the rich guys don't cause the worlds problems and being envious of them dosen't "cut it" either.

actually almost all wars are fought for economic reasons. some muslims even claim that the battle of badr was fought because the meccans feared mohammed would cut off the pilgrammages to mecca which bring their city countless revenus. our revolution was fought over the stamp tax was it not? was the french revolution an attempt by the bourgeoise to seize wealth and land from the nobles? the list goes on and on.

The middle and lower classes are too dumb to increase the wealth like the upper 5% have done!

so because their dumb that releases us from all moral obligation to not harm them and we can thus prey on their stupidity so as to satisfy our lust for profit?

what a generous soul you are. funny how walton gets to help someone without any sacrifice.
No sacrifice? You mean Grandpa Walton didn't work his butt off to get Dad Walton set up in the drygoods store? Are you saying that the poor should not sacrifice to get to where the "Waltons" are?

what i'm saying is that a family who owns more wealth than bill gates should share it rather than hord it all for themselves. many wal mart employees do not even have health care.

Tiger said...

Gee Kyle, you're really hung up on this "class" thing aren't ya? A traitor to my class?
Sorry, I didn't fully realize 'til now that you're a Marxist. Many LIBERALS are Marxist so don't worry about it.

You seem to be upset that human nature will motivate us to obtain wealth. The most noble in history share that wealth; America, England, Australia, etc. The Marxists, thinking they'll distribute the wealth in a fairer way, destroy this human motivation and everyone becomes poor - well, everyone but the Elitists in charge.

China has attempted to do what you wish over it's history. That would be a great place for you to live. Oh, wait - China has embraced capitalism... sorry.

This envy you have is a sickness, Kyle. You need to see someone who can heal your spirit. I have to assume that you live in the manner you're arguing and give lots of your money away? Right? Don't you?

Mary said...

Good Lord.

This "Kyle" guy is a real piece of work.

I'd comment but now I have a headache.