No Child Left Behind!

[Cancel7]

And the federal government can? Let's compare debt records, the states (usually Conservative Republican ones) are doing better than the feds.

Yes, we have the money to provide American children with proper health care. This can be a pay as you go proposition, not a problem.

 

[uscitizen]

Umm remember if we just repealed the tax cuts for hedge fund managers the income would fund 1/3 of the federal welfare bill.

 

[TheDanold]

Yes, we have the money to provide American children with proper health care. This can be a pay as you go proposition, not a problem.

Darlalaling, we have a large deficit and a massive debt, now is the time to focus on where to cut (ie: Hello Dems: Iraq and corp welfare, you did rail against this), not try and find where to launch massive new social welfare government dependence programs.

Parents are responsible for their own kids, we've seen the disaster in Liberal Democrat run inner cities when lefties tried to make the state the provider with food, healthcare and pay. The answer is not to spread that disaster across other income groups.

 

[uscitizen]

If parents are responsible for their own kids then you do not support vouchers ?

 

[Cancel7]

Darlalaling, we have a large deficit and a massive debt, now is the time to focus on where to cut (ie: Hello Dems: Iraq and corp welfare, you did rail against this), not try and find where to launch massive new social welfare government dependence programs.

Parents are responsible for their own kids, we've seen the disaster in Liberal Democrat run inner cities when lefties tried to make the state the provider with food, healthcare and pay. The answer is not to spread that disaster across other income groups.

Yes, it's funny how the starve the beasters who are on record as wanting to dismantle the social safety net, have managed to so bankrupt our government that it can now be yelled "we can't afford to!" when it comes to providing our own, American children, with basic health care. It's almost as if it was purposeful, but you know, that would just be paranoid thinking.

Not a problem though. We can roll back the tax cuts for the top 2 percentile, to pay for any expansion the states say they need in the highly succesful and popular CHIPS program...and we can go from there. I sense some money saved when we pull out of Iraq, and who knows where else we can cut, huh? Offshore tax havens, oh I think there are a couple of places.

 

[uscitizen]

I think we would have no problems if all across the board paid the same percentage of taxes on income as the working class do.

 

[TheDanold]

Yes, it's funny how the starve the beasters who are on record as wanting to dismantle the social safety net, have managed to so bankrupt our government that it can now be yelled "we can't afford to!" when it comes to providing our own, American children, with basic health care. It's almost as if it was purposeful, but you know, that would just be paranoid thinking.

Duhla, in the 1950's before the Food Stamp Act or Medicaid, was anyone, including poor children, dying or starving in the street?
Show some more faith in your fellow Americans than what you do.

"In all that people can individually do for themselves, government ought not to interfere.” - Abraham Lincoln

Do you think it's cruel that parents pay for their kids clothes, their beds, their food? No child is going to grow up to become more self-responsible and independent by becoming more dependent on the responsibility of government.

Not a problem though. We can roll back the tax cuts for the top 2 percentile, to pay for any expansion the states say they need in the highly succesful and popular CHIPS program...and we can go from there. I sense some money saved when we pull out of Iraq, and who knows where else we can cut, huh? Offshore tax havens, oh I think there are a couple of places.

This is false and an exxageration of the numbers.
Bush's full tax cut (for all classes not just the rich) was 1.3 trillion over 10 years.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes
Which equals 130 billion each year right? Fairly simple.

If you repeal the tax cut ONLY for the rich, you get less than 130 billion per year. The tax policy center pegs that tax increase to yield about $40 billion per year:
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001454.html

The saddest part for you is I'm being REALLY generous here, because I am not factoring in that tax increases (like any expense to a business) encourage investment and business to leave and thus shrink the tax base.

You need to get the job done with spending cuts.

 

[Bonestorm]

Darlalaling, we have a large deficit and a massive debt, now is the time to focus on where to cut (ie: Hello Dems: Iraq and corp welfare, you did rail against this), not try and find where to launch massive new social welfare government dependence programs.

Parents are responsible for their own kids, we've seen the disaster in Liberal Democrat run inner cities when lefties tried to make the state the provider with food, healthcare and pay. The answer is not to spread that disaster across other income groups.

When deciding where to cut why start with a overwhelmingly successful program that generates across-the-board positive results in the health of low-income children?

I mean, it's fine if that's where you want to stake out your stand on principle but be prepared for the backlash from the public.

 

[uscitizen]

We had the commodity program before food stamps.
we had the new deal, etc....

 

[TheDanold]

I think we would have no problems if all across the board paid the same percentage of taxes on income as the working class do.

I'm in favor of a flat tax as well. Not only that it would be fairer but it would make filing taxes so much easier and less complex.
I remember though when Newt talked about this, he got a very angry response from a lot of accountants - it just shows that government regulation and taxation creates more special interests.

 

[Cancel7]

Duhla, in the 1950's before the Food Stamp Act or Medicaid, was anyone, including poor children, dying or starving in the street? Yes, certainly, though most will die in homes or shelters, or even hospitals after being taken to an emergency room,where they cannot be turned away, even today.

Show some more faith in your fellow Americans than what you do.

"In all that people can individually do for themselves, government ought not to interfere.” - Abraham Lincoln

Do you think it's cruel that parents pay for their kids clothes, their beds, their food? No child is going to grow up to become more self-responsible and independent by becoming more dependent on the responsibility of government. We are talking about health care here Dano, let's ensure they grow up at all first.

This is false and an exxageration of the numbers.
Bush's full tax cut (for all classes not just the rich) was 1.3 trillion over 10 years.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes
Which equals 130 billion each year right? Fairly simple.

If you repeal the tax cut ONLY for the rich, you get less than 130 billion per year. The tax policy center pegs that tax increase to yield about $40 billion per year: So? The CHIPS is currently funded at 30 billion a year, the states say this is not enough...I think they crap their pants over another 40 billion, more than doubling the existing program, don't you? Perfect, we've now fully funded the expansion of CHIPS and then some!http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001454.html

The saddest part for you is I'm being REALLY generous here, because I am not factoring in that tax increases (like any expense to a business) encourage investment and business to leave and thus shrink the tax base.

You need to get the job done with spending cuts.

bolded

 

[uscitizen]

the tax agencies would pay thier last dime to congress to ensure that we never get a flat tax.

 

[Bonestorm]

Duhla, in the 1950's before the Food Stamp Act or Medicaid, was anyone, including poor children, dying or starving in the street?
Show some more faith in your fellow Americans than what you do.

"In all that people can individually do for themselves, government ought not to interfere.” - Abraham Lincoln

Do you think it's cruel that parents pay for their kids clothes, their beds, their food? No child is going to grow up to become more self-responsible and independent by becoming more dependent on the responsibility of government.


This is false and an exxageration of the numbers.
Bush's full tax cut (for all classes not just the rich) was 1.3 trillion over 10 years.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes
Which equals 130 billion each year right? Fairly simple.

If you repeal the tax cut ONLY for the rich, you get less than 130 billion per year. The tax policy center pegs that tax increase to yield about $40 billion per year:
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001454.html

The saddest part for you is I'm being REALLY generous here, because I am not factoring in that tax increases (like any expense to a business) encourage investment and business to leave and thus shrink the tax base.

You need to get the job done with spending cuts.

Dano - Your argument against this program is essentially that it's a child's fault if they are born to poor parents who cannot afford health insurance. That's pretty fucked up.

Secondly, the issue in the article deals with how to allocate the funds already in the system, not to expand the S-Chip program broadly. The states are given some leeway wuth respect to what to do with the federal funds they receive for the program. Some states decided to expand the number of children the program can cover, not to expand the amount of money they spend. Funding is not an issue.

However, to the extent you want to make funding the issue, the Democrat's expansion to the S-Chip program has a total cost of $35 billion over the next five years. That's roughly $7 billion per year and could be paid for many times over with a repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the top 2%.

 

[Cancel7]

Dano - Your argument against this program is essentially that it's a child's fault if they are born to poor parents who cannot afford health insurance. That's pretty fucked up. Really, Dano, claiming now that children should pull themselves up by their boot straps and stop whining they don't have money for penicilin when they have strep throat, is pretty far out, he's right.

Secondly, the issue in the article deals with how to allocate the funds already in the system, not to expand the S-Chip program broadly. The states are given some leeway wuth respect to what to do with the federal funds they receive for the program. Some states decided to expand the number of children the program can cover, not to expand the amount of money they spend. Funding is not an issue.

However, to the extent you want to make funding the issue, the Democrat's expansion to the S-Chip program has a total cost of $35 billion over the next five years. That's roughly $7 billion per year and could be paid for many times over with a repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the top 2%. Exactly! You were hoisted on your own figures, face it Dano.

in bold.