Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apparently the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment. It's had decades to throw such spending out and has not come close to doing so.
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...."
Aside from the "promote the general welfare" part, ensuring that the poor are not utterly destitute is part of insuring "domestic tranquility". If you disagree with that assessment I suggest you google "Marie Antoinette". Any nation which ignores it's poor does so at it's own peril. Even the ROMANS understood that.
Except many of use want to reform entitlements - virtually EVERY developed country on Earth besides the USA provides universal healthcare and, statistically, has a healthier population with lower rates of virtually all illnesses due to the preventive and free approach which saves the state the money that would be lost due to illness of workers in the official economy.
Universal healthcare is unconstitutional.
Quote:
Strangely, while we don't provide universal healthcare - we spend almost twice as much of our budget per capita, and nominally, on medical care than does the second biggest spender on health in the developed world. Yet we rank in the 20s when it comes to life expectanct, infant mortality, maternal mortality, etc. The problem is structural, not the idea itself.
It's not strange at all. It comes from paying for healthcare with insurance rather than out of pocket. There is no incentive to lower costs in healthcare. Patients don't care what the cost is going to be of the treatment because they aren't paying for it. The insurance company is. There is no market competition in healthcare. You don't go around shopping for the best doctor at the lowest price the way you do if you're going to buy a car. On the other side of things, of course countries with universal healthcare can get away with paying far less for it, because the government controls the prices. It works the same here, where government controlled healthcare provided to the military is less expensive than civilian healthcare.
Oh my GAWD, we actually spend 44% of our tax dollars ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Oh the horror.
In a perfect world, we would be spending 100% of our tax dollars ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE (who else is more worthy than US?).
Sadly, foreign tyrants make that impossible.
Ken
It's the same ignorant meme from the lefties, as if nothing exists unless the federal government is doing it. The states are capable of taking care of their own citizens, we do not need the feds taking money for the states, just to launder the money and give some of it back.
Apparently the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment. It's had decades to throw such spending out and has not come close to doing so.
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...."
Aside from the "promote the general welfare" part, ensuring that the poor are not utterly destitute is part of insuring "domestic tranquility". If you disagree with that assessment I suggest you google "Marie Antoinette". Any nation which ignores it's poor does so at it's own peril. Even the ROMANS understood that.
Ken
The US Constitution was not written as if the federal government was all that existed. The Constitution actually enumerated the powers, responsibilities and functions to limit the power of the federal government.
In the phrase "in Order to form a more perfect Union" the 'union' is the union of the states, it did not say a more perfect central government.
One of the purposes of the US Constitution was to limit the power and authority of the federal government, the lion's share of power resided with the states.
So I would disagree as in the past the revenue was higher.... BTW the future estimates are often much higher then reality due to what they are based on.
As for spending...GASP...yes wars are expensive. Maybe our leadership who votes on his sort of thing should think about that.
I agree and as in mentioned in another post I am glad congress is bringing a bill forward that will end Osamas endless wars using the authority given to Bush in 2001. Osama has killed more Americans and innocents in Afghanistan than bush. That doesn't even come close by the number of people killed by the weapons Hillary gave Al Qaeda via Bengahzi. Osama has more personal wars going on then we can afford. Now he wants sweeping authority to go after ISIS the JV team.. The terrorist group he created..
The US Constitution was not written as if the federal government was all that existed. The Constitution actually enumerated the powers, responsibilities and functions to limit the power of the federal government.
In the phrase "in Order to form a more perfect Union" the 'union' is the union of the states, it did not say a more perfect central government.
One of the purposes of the US Constitution was to limit the power and authority of the federal government, the lion's share of power resided with the states.
Take it up with the supreme court because they obviously disagree and have the authority on constitutionality.
And actually, the federalist won, not the group that wanted more state power.
Big Government is insanely expensive, and incompatible with personal freedom.
Are confusing personal freedom with the ability to do whatever the heck you want? I have a lot freedom so I'm confused by your statement. Or is it just some far right talking point.
It's funny how these liberals just ignore the cost of social spending and talk about how much the military budget is. It's just so transparently intellectually dishonest. The social spending that they support far outstrips the cost of the military, and yet they think they can get away with appearing financially responsible by pointing to the cost of the military. It's so pathetic that it's humorous.
Yes, which actually benefits citizens though?
Social spending is intended to improve the quality of life for individuals and families, as well as increasing people's access to opportunities.
Military spending, for the most part, benefits no one. At least nowadays, it's all about national chest thumping ego.
Entitlements are expensive ...please save that nonsense for the other threads.
A lot of entitlement costs are self funded. In fact the SS trust fund currently has 2.7 Trillion US dollars in it as it has been used to float the general budget for decades. Medicare is funded through payroll taxes as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
