Priorities are subjective in politics. What is a priority to me may be a waste of money to you and vice versa.

This is a classic Red Herring argument. Requesting additional spending for the war is hardly the same thing as the expansion of an entitlement program. The war is a "pay as you go" whereas the SCHIP program is a "pay me now, pay me more later, pay me even more forever". Not surprising though that the whacklibs would attempt to demagogue this issue.


Aquilla

One has nothing to do with the other. The President doesn't have a checkbook, the Senate doesn't have a checkbook. Only the House of Representatives has a checkbook with the taxpayers money and loans to be spent. Congress authorized both, so one can't argue that it is the President or the right or the left.

CruisingRam you must not have been a math major...

If these figures were correct, $10 billion a day times 365 days/year = $3,650 billion a year, or $3.65 trillion. Given that the entire budget of the US government is around $2.9 trillion per year and the total spending to date (as of last month) was around $600 billion, your numbers are so far off as to be laughable.

Carlitoswhey's line of reasoning is spot on here. This is not about health care for poor kids. This is about defining where we should draw the line in providing a safety net. Two parents who work part time or intermittently...do they deserve health care from the government. Would YOU offer to help pay for their health care out of your pocket if it were deemed charity? I admit that I probably would not.

Please post your sorce on this one.

This is an excellent point. We are talking about "state" child care program(s). And the way the re-authorization of SCHIP was written in the committee it allows high cost states to take higher claims against lower cost states. If the program wasn't vetoed it would grow out of control within years. How many dollars a pack could the House claim as a means of funding this? When the smokers stop smoking or smoke illegally what about all the billions the courts have awarded to the states on record? Now each state loves smokers because the awards help keep them in the black, end it and taxes go up in each state.

The federal government needs to encourage people to buy insurance, to be self reliant and less dependant on the government. Government dependency didn't work with welfare and congress should look at "lessons learned" when starting new adventures.

We have trillions of dollars of debt and the boomers are going to want that social security money congress wasted on welfare dependency and they are retiring in hoards. Congress continues to fund ball stadiums and museums as if we had trillions in excess. Like Hillary said I have a million "good ideas" and none of them costs a peny or a dollar.

Let the House re write the SCHIP bill the way the President will sign it and if it is so bad then the other party can run on the ticket that they will amend the SCHIP in their first year of office. If the people really dislike the program then I guess they will vote Democratic in support of more money for it? So what is the hold up getting the child care bill back to the president where the poor children can be cared for at some level?

Well we do have socialized education in this country..yes? I am asking how you separate the two...how do we claim that a child's health is irrelevant or even distinctly separate when it comes to their public education? I think that we should provide tax incentives to those who prefer to pursue private health care and many will for many reasons. Yet, I also think that when you are asking, no wait we in fact make it a legal obligation of parents, to send their children to government run schools that some form of health coverage/care/system needs to be in place.

Yes I understand some people take advantage of the system, can afford health insurance but choose to spend their money on a fancy car instead, yes some people have poor priorities yet i think as a society we must have the right priorities too and i think every child in America should have access to health care, regardless of their parents' poor priorities, poor decisions or poor incomes.

First, there is a legal precedent for public education, as noted in the Northwest Ordinance:



As for separating the two, you are aware that public education is more expensive and not as good as private education, I assume. Our country spends more than any nation in the world save Switzerland on educating our youth, and the system stinks. In major cities, we have a two-tier system:
1 - haves (private / magnet schools)
2 - have-nots (underperforming, over-funded, inefficient, dangerous public schools)


OK, so who "doesn't have access" to health care and why? We all agree on this program for low-incomes, even up to 2 or maybe 3 times the poverty line. What we don't agree on is having this creep into the middle class.

"It's for the children" only removes personal responsibility from the adults, and our citizens become more complacent and dependent on the government. The obvious added effect is that we concentrate power in the hands of the government when it comes to health care "for the children" and they make choices that we individuals may not like. Mandatory vaccinations for genitally-transmitted diseases at age 11 comes to mind...

It all comes down to whether you have a collectivist or individualist mindset. Individualism has served our culture well; I'd hate to lose it "for the children," rather I'd like to encourage it among them. Maybe we could start teaching it in school again.

The point is that Libertarians oppose universal health care and social programs. I am just curious why someone that declares as a Libertarian would be against the veto of the expansion of a government run healthcare program. Besides, are you CR's defender? I am sure CR can speak for himself.

Certainly CR can speak for himself if he chooses. Your question is silly? Like Democrats and Republicans, I would think there is room to maneuver under the Libertarian tent.

BTW: One of the things Bush opposed was an increase in the cigarette tax to pay for the proposal. Saturday I was at a farmer's market. A man was sitting in a closed van smoking with his daughter or granddaughter, who looked to be about four also in the van. Children, because their lungs are not fully developed, are more susceptible to second-hand smoke than adults. You mentioned family values in another thread. This guy was a fine example of family selfishness and irresponsiblity. He could have easily smoked the damned cigarette outside the van.

With that in mind why do the states need the federal government to fund STATE Child Health Insurance Plan? Why not simply tax that guy smoking cigs an extra $2.00 a pack and get the pats on the back from the insured. If they want to give people making a half million dollars SCHIP then no one but the state taxpayers would have a say on it.

I merely made an observation, and the point you tried to make off the observation, if I understand what you are driving at, is weak a best.

Zack, I don't think state action is somehow better than federal action, especially since the program is already established.

My point is that the Federal plan paid for the SCHIP with cigs and you said Bush vetoed it in part because of the cig tax so why not simply raise the cig tax in your state if it is a good idea to fund such a program. Actually, I don't think the federal government has any connection with state citizens at all other than that in the constitution. There is nothing the federal government can do to make a state program better without costing more. For example the Federal Department of Education doesn't teach any children. If you visited every federal Department of Education person, that doesn't teach any kids personally that earns more than $50K and spent five minutes with each one you couldn't meet them all in your lifetime. Then that same department, that doesn't teach any kids has a union that doesn't teach any children and one would wonder why does a federal Department need a union? Is the federal government unfair to its employees? How about those Coast Gardsmen, Marines, Army, Navy and Air Force, who represents them? And if their representation is correct why wouldn't it work for the Department of Education that doesn't teach any kids?

My point once again is that the federal government can't manage anything well. Today I watched the Senator from OK argue in front of the Senate that a government funded watchdog agency grades sub programs and finds some that cannot prove they serve any purpost at all, their mission doesn't support anything. In his amendment he argued that all sub programs graded "worthless" by this federally funded watchdog agency should be reduced in funding by 10% and that each such identified sub program manager be brought in front of a committee in the House and senate to justify why they should continue to be funded. I think it was Senator Harken, Democrat of IO that stood up and demanded the amendment be "TABLED" or killed for lack of support. And, it was killed by elected Senators from both sides of the isle. I think the Senator from OK then should have submitted another amendment recomending the Government Funded Watchdog Agency should be cut in funding by 100% since it serves no purpose.

If the funds wasted by the federal government were returned to the states kids could be educated and poor kids could be insured probably with the federal union dues alone.

Would you please provide some supporting resources to back this claim up?

ED's 4,500 employees X average $100K =$1 billion of which 10% is Union representation, or $100 million
http://www.ed.gov/about/landing.jhtml?src=gu

Now granted that the 100 million union expences wouldn't pay for all the education and poor kids health care but if the states were taxed less the $72 billion the agency operates on then poor health and education in the states would not be a problem.

In the federal government the union representatives are paid on the fed payroll and are nearly 10% of the workforce and the union dues along with the unoin workers would be significant. Also note the expence of the structures required for these employees along with their unions in Washington, DC, Arlington, Va and every state and possession of the US in support of their missions. We are talking billions of the $72 billion alocated the ED Department.

How you manage to jump from Child Health Care to union bashing and the Department of Education is beyond me. Yet the math you provide doesn’t line up. It’s not enough to impact education or the S-CHIP program.

All your link tells us is that there are 4500 Department of Education Employees with a budget of $71.5 billion. From my link, also from an ED page, the budget is $67.2 billion. So the two figures are in the same ball park. From there, you create what UltimateJoe called (in another thread) a "complex hypothetical," that, as best I can determine, would save $100 million (not billion) taken from the hide of unions. Your $100.00 million figure may be accurate, but isn’t supported by your link. Your link is irrelevant for two reasons. First it doesn’t support the math you use to arrive at the $100 million figure. The $100-million figure is largely insignificant in a budget of $67 to 71 billion dollars. In fact, I detect a note of union opposition, if not dislike of government programs in your post.



http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html?src=ln

To give you an idea where DE funds go, Fort Worth ISD gets more than $4.5 million in direct federal funds.

http://www.fortworthisd.net/departments/bu...udgetupdate.pdf

See page 3 of link.

Multiply this by 14,000 school disricts across the nation mentioned in ky link and you have a huge sum. As much as we might not like some DE programs - NCLB, for example or Secterarty of Education Margaret Spellings, I can think of no better way to cause heart attacks among school superintendents than mere mention of cutting off federal funds.

By contrast, the Department of Defense budget is $401-billion dollars.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/defense.html

“Do you ever watch what people put in their carts at the grocery store? It seems that Americans are beginning to be completely oblivious to the idea of self-denial. Cookies, cakes, fried "instant" dinners, sugary cereals, and "quick fixes" seem to be all the rage.

People post "Health Care" reasons for American's poor health. It's really just that we eat 99% processed foods, drive thru quickies, and never walk a step during our 17 waking hours. Go to Japan. People walk all over the place. They eat fresh food. They hardly have anything fried. They're thin. They live longer. Go figure.”


For One Id like to point out that the quick fixes are what is encouraged by our society. Congress has given the public airways over to commerce and this is what commerce promotes. Fasting from food, moderation in dress, dwelling standard, and consumption, and other aspects of self denial or aestheticism is the number one enemy to commerce. Any world view that promotes this way of life is either ridiculed or vehemently attacked.

My father has recently returned from Japan and he mentioned that the idea that Japanese people eat healthy is an utter myth not only do they consume most of the same processed foods many of the negative aspects of their diet parallels the same negative aspects of the “soul food” diet of African American men. In fact what African Americans refer to as “Chitterlings” (deep fried Pig Intestines) is also very popular in Japan. In addition the soy sauce, which is widely used, contains an average of 900 grams of sodium compared to the 500 grams in table salt.
Consumption Chitterlings traces it days back to American Slavery in which slaves consumed anything they could get their hands on outside of their meager rations. People didn’t die of heart diseases then because of the fact they were outdoors performing backbreaking from sunup to sundown. When you continue such poor nutritional habits in a sedentary lifestyle you start to see the negative effects of the food you eat.
In Japan walking is common here is why. The GM monopolization of public transport that America suffered did not occur in Japan. Due to government intervention and promotion of public transport the people sensibly rely on efficient rail and bus transport. By default relying on this form of transport includes walking or cycling as a part of your daily commute which is good for your health. However the health of Japanese men drastically changes when they are transplanted to America. The fact that73 percent of Japanese-American men ages 71-93 suffer from severe high blood pressure is a testament to this fact.
In conclusion I must insist that the government does share responsibility in our eating habits and thus our overall health. The U.S.D.A. is the only agency in the world that has approved the milk laden with pus and antibiotics that occur from the result of Monsanto’s Bovine growth hormone. In order to improve sales in the corn industry they have also replaced sugar with High fructose Corn syrup. Coca Cola also continues to sell their product that is more effective as rust remover than as a soft drink. All of this continues without government intervention, and this is the tip of the ice burg. Government cannot absolve itself from responsibility of the well being of its citizens.


have HBP

Well, after making my claim of savings would probably do this and that and punched enter I realized I should have said it would make a significant contribution towards the effort.

You are totally correct in that I have absolutely no use for "federal employees unions". I don't see a problem with teachers unions but I simply don't think there is a basis for union representation in a federal agency. Federal agencies like DOD and DOT that have armed forces and Coast guardsmen have IG's to resolve employee-agency complaints along with access to law and congressional representation. For that reason I think unions in federal agencies are simply a waste.

In reference to what the federal department of education does as you mentioned above was my point. It is the same point for SCHIP, and the point is it doesn't do anything that the state couldn't do if it didn't exist. The federal government's job isn't to give states money for programs. All funds come from somewhere and that somewhere is from taxpayers, of which could be individuals or business. The states have all the individuals and businesses so why does the federal government need 4,500 employees to manage ED or any other program? Let the state collect the taxes needed to support the persons/programs within the state from the collective population and businesses and cut out federal waste. The federal agencies not identified in the constitution could close and the states could manage their own programs without sending trillions of dollars to be wasted on miles of building space and persons that don't manage health care or teach kid. That was my point. Hire state persons to do what is done in DC and cut out the middleman. This is especially better because states operate on a balanced budget and face their taxpayers directly for answers.

Sorry to stray away form the debate topic but I hope my explanation indicates why I did so. I was watching CSPAN this morning again and it seems the Democratic leadership leaked information through Roll Call that they will not work with the administration, they have plans to ram through an almost identical bill as the last for political reasons and I hope the America people will see they are less concerned about poor kids and more interested about buying emotion laden votes.

Even if you are correct, isn't this what Republicans have done on a much grander scale with national security issues. What goes 'round comes 'round. I have no compassion for alleged Republican "victims." I couldn't for them if I wanted to.

BTW: The original reason for federal aid to education was that the federal government has a broader tax base than the states. Texas is pretty much maxed out on property and sales taxes. By law, we would need a constitutional amendment to impose a state income tax. The Texas legislature would have a difficult time coming up with funds to replace S-CHIP. If the feds pulled out, the program would likely die in Texas.

Can't blame the Republicans for the war, especially now that the Democrats are in a very large majority in the House of Representatives. The rules in the house allow the majority to make every bill and then let the representatives vote yes or no. The Senate can't spend money or make legislation that spends money so the House simply has to have the guts to write funding for the military funding in such a way that the Senate can't amend it. When the Senate doesn't agree then they send it back to the House. When the president doesnen't agree he sends it back to the House. If the funding is written correctly to end hostilities and money runs out then only the Senate and the President can be blamed. The House is, as I stated in my last post using this method to re send a veto sure bill on SCHIP. If they can do it to the kids then why can't they do it to the war? Funding for the kids runs out on Nov. 15 so I guess they think they have one more go around before they have to work with the President and if they in the end negoiate to keep the program alive then it is pure politics with poor kids health. If they hold firm and say either the light is on or off then the people will decide who killed SCHIP and which side was unreasonable.

Federal taxes used to be paid to the federal government by the state through state tax collection. The federal government didn't get into state citizens pocketbook until the Rosevelt period with the Buck Act. The Buck Act is used to authorize SHIP because the bill is based on Social Security, don't believe me look up the bill.

Texas would have plenty ability to tax for all services if the Buck Act didn't exist and the state was still the one sending federal taxes to Washington verses the individuals. If it were turned around then the state of Texas would have a broader tax base than the federal government and there would be 4,500 less non educators between the taxpayers and the students.

Texas has a history of providing little in the way of social services. Even if they had the money, I doubt they would spend it. They would probably lower state taxes instead.

Again you are creating what UltimateJoe called complex hypotheticals. None of what you are talking about will become reality. Get used to it.

President Bush is arguing for Texas citizens then when he vetoed the SCHIP re authorization. As it was written it would fund some states at higher levels than other states.

You are completely correct, but I believe in a make believe state that exists like a country and you seem to believe in a federal government that gets its money from filthy rich oil barren. While my dream differs from your dream they both are dreams verses the reality that the federal government is bought and paid for by those who finance the elections and that isn't you or I.

In the real world the money you and I paid into the federal government in tax, SS/Medicare has been spent as fast as we sent it. We trusted that our SS/Medicare would be there when it was our turn but as each day passes the day comes closer to the day the feds will not be able to back up their promise to us. But they will still owe those who put them into office and they will want to make the working class feel good by giving their kids government paid health care. Today they will smile and say the evil smokers will pay for it and tomorrow when the program grows and the smokers get their smokes by mail or from dealers on the corner and the program has grown to $100 and then $200 billion they will decide the baby boomers life expectancy is eighty and start availability for benefits at 79 years of age so they can continue the game. Fools, loyal fools like you and I will still stand on the side of a political party saying go team as we are sold down the drain.

Who will be cut once SCHIP is law and is large covering most of the middle class, the kids (and later their parents) or those in Social Security when the money runs out?

I had to edit to address your first comment. Do you see the options dramatically different for a Democratic President? Lets wait until after the candidate (Hillary) is selected and watch her hedge to the center and leave open options for dealing with Iran, Syria and Lebanon and the WOT. I bet it will take some spinning to make her sound like, elect me and I'll end the war in Iraq. End will be re defined into the 09 lexicon.

For someone who isn't listed as a Republican, you are doing a fine job of providing Republican talking points.

Please come up with something we haven't already heard from RNC.

You are putting words in my mouth again. Where have I mentioned or even implied the government gets its money from "filthy rich oil barrens."

It's very simple. Type Control-F. Then in the box type in the words you want to find. Check my posts for the words "filthy," "rich," "oil," and "barrens." You'll come up empty. It's sort of like drilling a dry-hole.

BTW: I think you meant “baron” rather than “barren.”



http://dict.die.net/baron/





http://www.answers.com/topic/barren?cat=health

Why I hardly know where to start. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth but you did indicate earlier a relationship that the war had something to do with or in comparrison to the expentures towars SCHIP so I thought you must be leaning a little liberal. As I've stated earlier I watch a lot of CSPAN and most liberals, not saying you are one, blame the tax cuts for the rich and the war for most that is harming America. I used the term rich oil barrens as a generality to define what in my mind I think liberals think that tax money should come from. That all war is unnecessary and wasteful spending since it takes away from social funding. I did note that you have your party affiliation listed and I thought from what you have stated earlier you fell into that group. I know there are Blue Dogs and other branches of the party but few varieties of Democrats support small government or war. I'm not Republican because they seem to desire to spend as much as the Democratic party and maybe even more. . Please accept my apology if I placed you into a wrong catagory when making assumptions of where the federal government should get its money. But we seem to be way off topic so alow me to try again.
1. Was the President right or wrong to veto this expansion? Why?(because I'm conservative) I think the best government is the smallest government, unlike President Bush. The bill increased taxes on poor people (poor and target of the program are the people that primarily smoke) and those people will either quit smoking or buy illegal smokes to prevent paying taxes leaving $35 billion to be paid for by the general tax fund. Because government programs always expand and never shrink I can visualize it becoming much larger so to me (a conservative self reliant person) I find that as government expansion. So being conservative I had to agree with the veto because to agree with it I would have to believe that someone other than me would pay for it. I have insurance for my family of four already and fall into the 200% of poverty the program pays for so I know how much it costs now but I do not trust the government not to allow persons (as Prsident Bush did) in NY, NY and MN to put adults and persons earning twice as much as I earn on the program. I would prefer to just raise the poverty level by 100% for children only and let them go to Medicaid. An alternative would be to allow persons earning 100% of poverty to directly write off the costs of health insurance for their children from their federal income tax. Like those in poverty get unearned income refunds of $1000.00 for earning less than poverty those earning 100% could be given an equal break for their children's health expences.

Very few Americans are self reliant, or responsible so as a result they would like to buy toys like those earning more than them if they are in the 100 - 200% of poverty and will justify that the government can "afford" to buy their kids insurance. This will result in high unpopularity for conservative or self reliant lawmakers and encourage the weak to mainline government aid like a loser so they can buy more stuff until the tax comes due.

You do seem confused when it comes to getting someone's else's words correct.



Well, it says right there in my profile that I am a liberal Democrat. Look, it's right there to the left of my post in the information under my avatar. So, it shouldn't come as a big surprise. Still, you can't, or shouldn't, make assumptions based on labels.

Your profile tells us nothing.

I haven't mentioned the war in my posts to you. I did write this:



In response to this from you.



National security issues include quite a bit more than the war, although the war, I suppose can be included. I worked for H. & R. Block as a tax preparer for a number of years, so I know where the government gets it's revenue. Oil "barons," not "barrens," account for a portion of this. I didn't work with many rich people, though.

I was in fact confused I incorrectly thought post#48 was made by you and connected your position with CR's statement. Clearly I was wrong.

We agree on this point and I think you for advising me for my spelling error.

The entire debate seems to be on ideologies divided between liberal and conservative viewpoints. Both sides of the debate agree poor children should have adequate health care available to them. There is where the bipartisan agreement ends and differing views on the route to the goal is divided.

Again today the House leadership is using a closed rule to present only one alternative for agreement or disagreement. The bill was not marked up in any committee and is simply done by a group of leadership without input from the other house members regardless of party. You either vote for the new law that no one will take credit for drafting as presented by leadership or you vote against it.

The bill still has insurance for children and adults at 300% of poverty. The President has already stated he will veto it if it comes to his desk in current form. It is politics and nothing but politics.

You are not really addressing how you separate the two, how is public health absent of public eduction? How is a child's education absent from their physical and mental health? Claiming that the public manifestation of education is not as good as the private's is a mute argument in regards to the questions I am asking and the importance I feel to providing public education AND health care to children. Your argument applies to all public services...public transportation is as nice or as good as private limo service, court appointed and state provided legal representation is not as nice or as good as private legal representation, do you argue to also limit these services too? I also find your argument to be limited as any of us here who sends our child to public schools can tell you that they are all not "underperforming, over-funded, inefficient, dangerous" In many situations they work well and provide children in America with a good education. I am not denying many have huge problems but the whole picture should be addressed...why do some of our public services work well and some do not?
I also would be interested how you feel we would better address the have-nots through private enterprise? Any one who has lived in the poorer cities and regions of the US can attest to the fact that private enterprise does not address the poor (have nots) needs either.



This is probably the core element of our disagreement as I don't believe there are only a limited select few adults who hold responsibility in the health and education of our society's children. The citizens you claim become complacent are in my mind far more than just the citizens you have selected as being the freeloaders, by ignoring the needs of our whole society we too become complacent and dependent on the government. I would prefer to address the issues of poverty; drug abuse, poor education, mental health issues, abuse etc. in the lives of our children now so that when they become adults I am not finding myself so heavily dependent on the government to protect me from the ever increasing social ills poverty brings. I would rather spend the money on schools, health centers, sex education, and drug rehabilitation then on police forces.

And the idea we live in an Individualist society is just the sort of complacent mindset and removed sense of responsibility we as individuals hold to our society that so worries me. Children are not only the product of their individual parent's poor choices and lack of adequate care, they are also the product of their society. Perhaps it takes more than just empty words to encourage and foster a good life.

PS...
The cervical cancer vaccine that has you so worried about your individual health (um you are individually a man..so why?) is recommended to be given at the ages of 11-12. It helps prevent one of the leading causes of cancer deaths for women. The age is what was collectively agreed to by our physician oversight and public health organizations and now even the CDC recommends this age. So I have to assume your objection is based not on medical needs or information but instead a conservative religious view. Any vaccination is avoidable based on religious exemption, heck parents can allow their children to die horrible painful preventable deaths based on religious exemption in this country, don't worry this "individual" right is unfortunately still protected. The idea is to offer these protections before a female becomes sexually active and as any female on this board can inform you we have been routinely tested and prodded for many years prior to this immunization for evidence of this cancer causing virus, regardless of our stated sexual behaviors.

Education is not a responsibility of the federal government, it is a state responsibility. Please review this link http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html and the tenth amendment to the US Constitution. So likewise health of state citizens is not the responsibility of the federal government.

Your own link says this:



According to your link, 9% of educational funding comes from the feds. That's substantial, but not primary.

I don't think you can draw a straight parallel between the federal role in education and health care.

Medicare is already the primary health coverage for people over 65. When I retired TRS Care (Texas Teacher Retirement0 was my primaaary health care. At age 65 I was required to purchase Medcare Part B. It became my primary and TRS Care, my secondary insurer.

It must be hard to argue against what already exists. The SCHIP program already exists, the question is not if, but how much.

BTW: Bringing education into the equation clouds the issue and tends to get the thread off topic.

It's not. If a kid can't see the blackboard, he can't learn as well. If a kid has a toothache, he won't pay attention in class as well. If he didn't eat breakfast, he will be cranky come 10AM. If he doesn't get love and support from his parents, he may act out in school, disrupting more than just his own learning. So, since public schools provide one part of child-rearing (education), the government should provide for all the other needs as well? I assume boarding schools are part of the equation? Mandatory hugs? I'm only half kidding here; you could make the same argument for a host of children's needs.

As for legal representation, I find myself looking to the Bill of Rights and wanting our criminals to have a fair and speedy trial. I see no corresponding right to a fair and speedy car, bus or train, so I probably would limit it, yes. A lot of waste there, especially in rail. (I'm speaking of the federal government here, keep in mind)


Well, I was quite specific and said "in our major cities" we have a two-tier system. Before I address your argument, are you disagreeing with me on that, or are you saying it works where you live, which is not a major city?

Similarly, as to the broader point about why some public services work and some do not, I am wondering which ones you think work, and which ones you agree don't work well. I have my own views of how well some of these things work.


That is a fair point, and there will always be the "have nots" and we as a society have to figure out how to best provide. To be fair, however, the government often does its level best to prevent private enterprise from helping. We tax people at levels which prevent them from affording private schooling, while providing them with sub-par public schools. In Chicago, we keep Wal Mart from providing affordable goods to inner city residents because organized crime labor has influence on local government. We don't address real issues like tort reform, driving up malpractice insurance and causing poor women in rural counties to have to go to other states or big cities for health care. Zoning laws and "environmental impact" studies driving out affordable housing...I could go on and on.


I wasn't saying that anyone becomes freeloaders, it's just a fact - give people something and they expect it. Try giving a kid McDonald's every Friday for a while, then stop. We gave the elderly Social Security to keep them above water after the Great Depression, and now middle class baby boomers expect it to be their pension plan.

This is an anecdote, but I think it's appropriate here. When my wife hurt her foot and we lived in the UK, we called a taxi to go to hospital. When our (British) neighbors found out, they were incredulous - "why didn't you call an ambulance - it's free!" An average ambulance ride costs what - five hundred bucks? The cab cost about £4. Take the difference and multiply that times even a small percentage of the 60 million recipients of "free" health care in the UK and you see the cost of entitlements.


Rather than raising them from cradle to grave, we could discourage illegitimacy, more strongly enforce truancy laws, reinstate things like school prayer, show some good moral values once in a while on TV or the movies and have parents teach values to their kids?



Perhaps it takes a village!

As for individualism, it's not my opinion, but a measured fact. When you measure "collectivism" vs. "individualism," the US skews towards individualism, unlike most of Europe. (link)


Lastly, I really don't care about the cervical cancer vaccine, but was just looking for an example. Take sex ed for second graders or "jimmy has two daddies" books for kindergarten and you get my meaning. Whatever standard "the government" sets is going to be too far for some, and if we don't allow choice in education, health care, whatever, they can't do anything about it.

My last post was to address the responsibility according to the US Constitution as it applies to what the federal and state governments responsibilities are. For example the federal government can deny highway funds to a state that doesn't follow seat belt laws or speed limits in the past. The federal programs not directly identified in the US Constitution are set up as blackmail accounts that place laws requiring certain requirements and then offer grants to states that qualify by following the lead of the feds. Yet, the primary responsibility is always the state. If you look at this link http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/bu...4/glossary.html and look at Mandatory Spending and Discretionary Spending definitions then perhaps it makes sense. The federal government could fund ED or SCHIP at zero dollars because it is simply up to the discretion of the federal government. They can mandate but they can also mandate and then not fund the mandate if they so desire.

My point is that the federal government has no authority to control citizens outside of the US Constitution as listed in the tenth amendment. There is very little authority over individual state citizens in the federal government and most of the connections are those through the Social Security act, which makes volunteers that take numbers property of the US Federal Government. There is no requirement for state citizens to be required to become federal property but they do for the benefits that they would otherwise lose if they did not. SSAN=Property of the US federal government. Reference: The Buck Act
http://www.svpvril.com/OACL.html

Zack I've been hearing this as far back as I can remember. There was a rather prominent group, with members like Strom Thurmond, who identified themselves as "state righters." This view hasn't done well since the New Deal. It does little good to argue a states rights case when programs you don't like are in place and some of them have been fo decades.



http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare-clause

In the last 70 years, the general welfare clause has overshadowed the 10th Amendment. Sorry 'bout that.

Deal with what is, not what should be. Your take ain't gonna happen. After 45 to 50 years of listening to it, it bores me.

It's really hard to run on a ticket that I'll lower your taxes but I'm going to shut down HUD and ED. Yet, president Bush has vowed to veto excess spending on programs that don't fit into a budget that recognizes the reality of Mandatory Spending and national security. It is especially hard to sell when your party had a majority in the legislative and executive branch and expanded government and funded the bridge to nowhere. The reality is the reality that it is a matter of time until mandatory spending will require Discretionary Spending be limited or a very significant tax be placed on the taxpayers to make up the difference.

This is the debate on SCHIP re-authorization as to how it should be financed. If one looks at the reality of the proposed re authorization smokes will only be a wick to the bomb that will explode once the wick burns out. The reality is that SS and Medicare Mandatory Spending will make lawmakers choose to fund SS and Medicare or SCHIP as it is currently proposed under the Democratic plan. The problem is an explosion of expansion at this time will put future congresses in peril of such a choice. I tend to agree with Bush that lets get the poorest of the poor covered within a minimal budget and then look at how it could be improved in the future. The truth is the future for my kids, even if the feds provides their children health care looks bleak if the fed has to increase taxes to pay for my Social Security and Medicare that congress spent decades ago on social programs that sounded so good.

I agree with you that it is doubtful that the fed govt will close down ED or HUD so you and I can receive our Mandatory Spending of SS and Medicare as the boomers bring home the debt that takes the budget off balance. Is it fair to add SCHIP program at a level that will also require the closing of NASA and NIH so they only have to double tax on my children while increasing retirement age to 72 for SS and Medicare. Bush's plan is simply more in line with history, our SS and Medicare were spent decades ago on other nice programs like SCHIP and it is time to stop expanding government without a way to not harm the next generation.

Preident Bush, two words that create an oxymoron when used together.

Six years of a Republican Congress and not one budgetary veto.

It looks like Bush is the one playing politics, not the Democrats he so freely bashes.

Bush is hardly taking the high ground.

Regardless of how you feel about president Bush or his administration do you support House leader Pelosi's plan, and it is her plan and not the House's plan, for SCHIP or President Bush's plan? Lets say Bush and Cheney resign today and House leader Pelosi is President, would you support "her plan" for SCHIP and if so why after what I stated in my last post?

This is largely irrelevant and unlikely, but I would welcome President Pelosi.

The thing is Zack, S-CHIP will eventually be refunded. It's just a matter of the funding level. I would probably support Pelosi's plan. I like Demoratic priorities better than Republican priorities.

The progra, is still being funded on a temporary basis.



http://www.google.com/search?q=Temporary+F...amp;rlz=1I7ADBR

So, we're not talking about some esoteric debate pitting Amendment X against the general welfare clause. The whole thing boils down to when a bill gets passed (with Bush approval or over his veto) and how much funding is provided. Nothing will kill the program.