Republicans want to limit access to SSI for children

Post Reply New Topic

I heard this on NPR this morning:

http://m.npr.org/news/Health/139722024?singlePage=true

Republicans in the US want to reduce access to social-security support for children, especially for those with ADHD.

From the article:

If I ever have to wonder why I vote Democrat, I think about stuff like that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

So they want to save money by taking away meds from kids who need it to live a tolerable life.

good family values right there.

I get the feeling NPR is not telling the whole story.


Anyways, we have a 14.3-16 trillion dollar national debt, the economy is looking like it's about to go into depression territory, and the spending we have going on is unsustainable.


I've got a question for all of you, where do you propose we cut spending?


If you say military spending, you're neglecting the fact that in order to keep ahead of the Chinese we have to keep ahead of them in advancements of military technology. I hate to break it to everyone but Fighter Jets are expensive, aircraft carriers are expensive, etc. Also military spending is the one area of government spending that has a positive effect on GDP.

If you propose tax hikes like Obama is proposing, you end up targetting small business owners, not simply millionaires and billionaires like Obama's rhetoric claims.


The bulk of our spending is the entitlement programs, and I'll be honest with you, I don't like the idea of them cutting into SSI for kids with ADHD, but you have to consider the facts.

There are a lot of things out there I would like to buy, but can't simply because I don't have the money for it. Republicans are trying to get our fiscal house in order which is a mess both parties caused, but it seems one party now wants to take responsibility and clean up the mess. While the other as we can see with NPR, doesn't propose anything, rather instead resorts to character assassination and cheap political games, putting the political partisanship ahead of country bashing their political opponents whenever they propose the tough choices.


If we don't do something now, we're eventually going to be forced to make the cuts by just plain simple reality that people won't loan us money anymore, and in all honesty when that happens we'll have to pretty much make cuts that make what the Republicans are proposing look like trivial decreases. I'm not playing partisan games here, the facts are the facts.

All the money of our top 1% if I recall correctly could only run this government for 10 days, that's right 10 days. We can't tax our way out of this.

The republican opposition to social programs is entirely ideological. Some people really do believe in "social darwinism."

We start two unfunded wars, and 10 years later have a huge deficit (surprise, surprise). So, the "obvious" solution is to cut SSI, Medicare, and Medicaide? Yeah, that makes no sense.

Taxing the 1% wealthiest would certainly help. And as far as falling behind China militarily; the fact of the matter is, the Chinese would rather sell us cheap stuff we Americans ought to still be making, rather than blowing us to kingdom come. China is only a communist state in name these days. So yes, it's not going to kill us to cut military spending.
I see more good in spending money on kids than shoveling cash into the super rich's savings accounts with tax breaks.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." -Dwight David Eisenhower.

That commie bastard really hated our troops, didn't he?

I never knew Ike was such a poet.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

How about re-instituting the tariff and bring back the tax generating jobs to America? Yes, the consumer will be the one paying the tariff, unless he or she buys American. It will bring choice to the consumer as well, the consumer can choose the American made product or the foreign made product. Under the proper tariffs companies will compete based on quality rather than being able to reduce the price by dumping pollutants and using slave labor.
Making companies produce here or paying taxes to sell here is a good idea for all of us. We sure could use the work. Just think of all the tax revenue generated.

Should corporations and the rich pay their fair share?

It would be nice if the rich and corporations paid their fair share, but let's face it. They WILL NOT, They have not, and they probably never will. Corporations in the history of this country has never paid a single dime in taxes and never
will. The rich and corporations are good at doing one thing, and that is COLLECTING taxes from us, but they are not good at paying taxes themselves. They have an expense account that is called taxes, and they file tax returns
with their checks, but the money that is paid to the government ultimately comes from the corporation's customers. The tax expense is paid by the customers even though the corporation gets the credit for paying the tax. In other words, the money that goes into the tax expense account is figured into the price of the corporation's product or service. It is that simple. If and when enough customers refuse to pay the tax expense by not purchasing the product, the corporation folds, and those in control move on to another business. The fat cat executives i.e. the rich still "get theirs."


The ruling class is not known for their efficient use of peoples' money. What the ruling class is very efficient at is taking money that is taken from the taxpayers and and turning this into a public relations campaign. When the
ruling class takes money from us and then uses that money to build a brand new hospital, it touts itself as doing such a great service to the people. However, when the people seek treatment from the hospital that their money built, they
are usually hit with massive bills for the act. Much of the bill includes expenses for taxes and other government mandates. These are not paid by the rich, but rather by the consumer of medical services. The board members also
get a good chunk of the money. If there is a public outcry against the exorbitant pay of the board members who run the taxpayer built hospital, there will likely be a decrease in the salary of the board members should the public outcry be loud enough. However, this reduction in salary does not mean that the board members make less money, it simply means that pay is given in a different manner. The board member may simply receive the pay in a hospital financed
vacation (attending a medical convention at hospital expense), kickbacks (stock options), or other forms of compensation. The board member will continue to receive essentially the same compensation or else he or she will move on to greener pastures.

Another example is Wal-Mart. When Wal-Mart flies one of its executives to a posh resort for a "business" meeting, Wal-Mart gets to deduct this from taxable money as an expense. Again, the executive "get his." When Wal-Mart sends a truck from the warehouse to a store to deliver merchandise, once again, Walmart gets to subtract fuel costs and other expenses from its taxable earnings. However, the Wal-Mart worker cannot do the same for for the expenses he or she incurs to earn his or her wages. Wal-Mart can deduct the cost of food for event hosting as well as costs of electricity that is required to keep a store open, however, Wal-Mart's workers cannot deduct the costs of food or medicine that allows their bodies to keep functioning for work purposes. In other words, there is one set of rules for the rich and another set for the rest of us.

The problem with the current tax system is the fact that there is one set of rules that apply to the rich and another set that applies to the rest of us. While it looks good to many when they see the tax table showing higher tax rates for
the rich, they don't see that most of the rich's earnings are not counted as income. For most of us, we have a much higher percentage of our earnings counted as "income." In fact, it is us and not the rich who are taxed at a higher rate
despite what the tax tables say. In addition, big corporations and the rich usually count on the tax breaks they get when they relocate their business to another area of the country. The rich have the option of voting with their feet
when they do not want pay their fair share. How? They simply move their business to a place where taxes (and wages) are lower. It happens all the time. In fact governments even give them bonuses and effectively pay for them to move to their jurisdiction. This applies to multinational moves as well as local and state moves. The rest of us are limited to where we move either due to cost or rules. Most individual workers are not allowed to move from country to country where the rules are in their favor, but the rich are allowed to do this very thing.

Even when tariffs are applied, it is the end customer who pays the tariffs in higher cost of goods and services and not the rich. The good thing about tariffs though is the fact that when set properly encourage goods and services to be produced in the area where they are consumed. However once again, it is us that pays them and not the rich. We've all have (or should have) heard the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." However in
the age of man's rule, another golden rule is actually practiced, and that rule is, "He who has the gold makes the rule." So, the next time people hear about a proposal to tax the rich, they should be very wary, because it is the rest of us
who will be paying the taxes and not the rich.

Sounds good to me. Is there a downside?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The only downside is that we the lower and middle class will have to pay the taxes because the rich won't. That is unless we decide not to buy the product in question and force them to lower the price and eat the tax themselves. That is the only way I know of to get the rich to pay their share. One reason why I don't use Microsoft products is because Microsoft does not pay its fair share. I use a free alternative instead.

Nope, he was a man that hated war, though he understood this is not a perfect world like he would like it to be.

Unfortunately, if we stopped spending on the military, some other tyranny would sweep in and either steal the new homes, food, power plants, etc. the money was used to build, or they will destroy them in an attempt to do so. A Redneck and Hillbilly militia would do a fantastic job of fighting off such a force, but it would take many years for them to do so (without help that is).

Hate to break this to you but its doubtful even if we took all the wealth the wealthies 1% of Americans have, that we could even run Government for a month. Then we would have another bunch of people whom are flat broke and right back where we started.

OH, COME ON! The rich are not going to left broke by raising their taxes!
What are we supposed to do, leave the poor even more destitute than they are, by cutting the social safety net? While you're at it, why not enforce a Goddamn income tax on the poor, and teach them a lesson for being poor and alive?!?!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer