Obama's Budget Speech

[inscribed]

Edit 2: Also' date=' I'm curious what programs you're referring to that you consider to be in violation of the Constitution.[/quote']

Honestly, well... any of the hundreds of programs covered by Medicare or Medicaid, Social Security, anything run by the Departments of Education, Energy, Homeland Security.... and the list goes on. This could become a very long post, but I'd rather plug an article by one of my favorite journalists published in one of my favorite magazines.

John Stossel - Let's Balance the Budget

[Mali]

Whereas stossel has some good points, I think he underestimates the effects his cuts would have across the board. He adopts a lighthearted approach to a VERY serious issue.

[Pali]

A meaningless statement without some real sources and numbers.

I already gave some numbers, and if you want sources for those I can find them again. If you want more...

From Wikipedia:

According to the Government Accountability Office, at a 2009 count, 3.53% of food stamps benefits were found to be overpaid, down from 7.01% in 1999.[16] A 2003 analysis found that two-thirds of all improper payments were the fault of the caseworker, not the participant.[16] There are also instances of fraud involving exchange of food stamp benefits for cash and/or for items not eligible for purchase with food stamps. [17]

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "In fiscal year 2009, the federal government spent about $56 billion on the SNAP."

3.5% of $56 billion is $1.9 billion.

Abuse of welfare programs is chump change and happens at vastly lower rates than most people believe, and getting rid of it will get us nowhere when it comes to balancing the federal budget.

Inscribed, that article does nothing to support your claim that those programs violate the Constitution (I'm aware that they're not in it, but there's a difference between not being in the Constitution and violating the Constitution). It doesn't even make that claim. And Stossel, frankly, sounds like he's just joking around - eliminate the Dept. of Education? What does he want to do, make the people of this country even dumber and more ignorant when we're already so far behind pretty much everyone else in that area? Some of those cuts I'm fine with, but some are just ridiculous. I also notice that the very concept of raising taxes, that some of these programs might do something worth funding, doesn't even cross his mind.

[Mali]

Stossel is just regurgitating the libertarian agenda which is ridiculous and uninformed babble.

[inscribed]

Inscribed, that article does nothing to support your claim that those programs violate the Constitution (I'm aware that they're not in it, but there's a difference between not being in the Constitution and violating the Constitution). It doesn't even make that claim. And Stossel, frankly, sounds like he's just joking around - eliminate the Dept. of Education? What does he want to do, make the people of this country even dumber and more ignorant when we're already so far behind pretty much everyone else in that area? Some of those cuts I'm fine with, but some are just ridiculous. I also notice that the very concept of raising taxes, that some of these programs might do something worth funding, doesn't even cross his mind.

I don't know how else to explain this. Do you understand what an enumerated power is? Our constitution grants the federal government a very limited number of powers. The federal government has the power to collect taxes in order to fund these powers. Anything that isn't on this list, is therefore a power delegated to state governments. Is Social Security or Medicare an enumerated power? No, it is not. Therefore, if Social Security was indeed a program worth funding, it'd be run by state governments. The fact that the federal government runs it, forces you to join it, and collects taxes to fund it, despite it not appearing anywhere in its enumerated powers, is indeed a violation of the constitution. This applies to any of the before mentioned programs/Departments.

I really don't know how to break this down further.

Also, Stossel is definitely NOT joking about any of those suggestions. Do you realize the Department of Education has only been around since 1979, and has done nothing since except to further push the United States Education Index even further back? I understand that there are many who can't imagine life without a group of elderly men of average-at-best intelligence in DC telling them how to spend their money, how to educate their kids, what to eat, and otherwise how to live, but life was indeed possible before we decided to hand over our personal freedoms. Take a look at Australia. They are ranked ahead of us in education, yet they have no federal funding of their grade school system. Impossible, I know! Somehow, they get by on state governments funding their schools, and they manage to rank far ahead of us.

It really amazes me that people can't even accept the possibility of an education system without federal government involvement, that they automatically would think it was a joke. Nevermind then, the Department of Education must really be doing its job! Give it ten years, and people won't even be able to imagine life before a Department of Homeland Security. We must of been pretty lucky to survive that long without it! Thankfully though, they are here now, to protect us.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

[J.Twendrist]

I dunno, it always seems to me both sides spew a bunch of useless crap. Temp jobs across the country to fill in needed spots seems like a good alternative to welfare. It just seems to me it should be done through the local areas, because they can direct people much more efficiently than the feds. Pretty much everything the federal government touches turns to ****. I mean, there is no such thing as efficiency when you are dealing with those people.

For the record, I am an independent. I like the middle ground, because it's the middle ground that keeps even the possibility of America alive. What is disturbing is the middle class is rapidly shrinking, and if you are familiar with Aristotle, this is a huge huge huge problem to any democracy (or republic).

[J.Twendrist]

Well, the Catholic Church needs to get off their asses and sell all the artworks, historical documents, and artifacts they have in their vaults not pertaining to their religion. The church spends millions of dollars keeping these things private, secure, and in good shape. But.. those things aren't for the pope, they should be shared with everyone, and if they sold them off, they would have that money, AND not have to spend the money on the upkeep, allowing them to do the good works that they promise at every mass.

(I am a Catholic myself, and I believe that the unification across the continents is good for a solid push toward bettering human life. Unfortunatly, the church is run by a bunch of old decrepit people.)

[Pali]

The question of whether or not Social Security and such programs are allowed was settled in the 1930s by the Supreme Court as falling under the very first provision of Article 1 Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". You may disagree with this interpretation - I do not. I think that taking care of people when they are down helps promote the general welfare of the country.

As for the Dept. of Education - frankly, the states themselves aren't doing a stellar job when it comes to education in any way either. Just take a look at Texas.

EDIT: I wasn't referring just to the Catholic Church - I meant that I think we need to stop exempting ALL religious houses from paying property taxes. The US govt. has no business favoring religion in this way.

[inscribed]

You may disagree with this interpretation - I do not. I think that taking care of people when they are down helps promote the general welfare of the country.

Then feel free to donate your own money and earnings to whatever charity you think best helps people that are 'down'. Stay away from my hard earned money. As an aside, I'd actually be interested in comparing my voluntary annual donations to charity to yours or any other big proponents of federally mandated charity. I wouldn't ever discuss personal information like that on such a public forum, but it'd be interesting to see if pro-big government proponents are willing to actually back up their beliefs when it involves their own money, or if they just expect other people to pay for their beliefs.

As for the Dept. of Education - frankly, the states themselves aren't doing a stellar job when it comes to education in any way either. Just take a look at Texas.

So... you claim both state and federal government handle education poorly, but you think we should go with the one that goes against the Constitution, instead of going with the one that agrees with our Constitution, and working to improve that. Right, makes sense....

[jekyllvhyde]

I'm so glad I never got involved in this thread cuz I'd prolly get too worked up so I'm not even gonna read everyone's posts. I watch political tv ALL the time, I'm a staunch liberal but I will criticize a democrat's actions as quickly as a republican. I VOTE FOR ME! hehe

[Pali]

Then feel free to donate your own money and earnings to whatever charity you think best helps people that are 'down'. Stay away from my hard earned money.

And I'd prefer it if the govt. stopped spending my money bombing brown people, but I doubt the US will ever stop doing that.

As an aside, I'd actually be interested in comparing my voluntary annual donations to charity to yours or any other big proponents of federally mandated charity. I wouldn't ever discuss personal information like that on such a public forum, but it'd be interesting to see if pro-big government proponents are willing to actually back up their beliefs when it involves their own money, or if they just expect other people to pay for their beliefs.

First off, whether I'm directly walking up to a charity and handing them a check or whether I'm paying taxes that the govt. uses in part to fund charitable services, it is still my money going to charity - it's not like I don't work and pay taxes too, you know. (P.S. And just so we are clear - I've never been on the receiving end of any of these programs either. I'm not just in favor of keeping my food stamps coming or something )

Second, percentage-of-income-wise, the poor give more to charity than any other income group. I'm unable to find any corroborating sources at the moment beyond a little note on Wikipedia about the average tax fraudster being in the higher income brackets, but I'm fairly sure that the poor also have lower rates of tax fraud. I think we can both agree that the poor are probably the main beneficiaries and supporters of social programs, so yes, their money is where their mouth is. (note: I personally do not give much to charities per se, as they too often have a religious component to their work that I refuse to subsidize, but I do support various non-profits)

Third, programs like Social Security and Medicare I do not see as being feasible to run as private charities. They work on too large a scale. Having the individual states each have their own programs, or not have their own programs, sounds like it'd just cause chaos for the health-care industry.

So... you claim both state and federal government handle education poorly, but you think we should go with the one that goes against the Constitution, instead of going with the one that agrees with our Constitution, and working to improve that. Right, makes sense....

Again, I remain quite unconvinced that the existence of the Dept. of Education is unconstitutional. I think that things are being handled poorly, but I'm not convinced that the idea is unsound so much as the methods. For instance, I think that the lack of any ability to set curriculum standards nationwide undermines the entire premise of having a Dept. of Education at all.