[East of the River]

Originally Posted by rubygreta

Yeah, I'm really tired of these stories about "hunger in America." There is no "hunger in America." And you are exactly right about food stamp usage and being overweight and diabetic.

And don't get me started with the school lunch programs, where 100% of the kids get a free lunch. That's where government dependency begins.

Food stamps can be used to purchase peanut butter, jelly and bread. My son ate that for three years straight because he loved it. Nothing wrong with it.

There isn't hunger in America because we have these programs. Pretty simple really.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

What happens if my house burns down and I don't have insurance, should you have to pay? Why should the government fund everything for everyone?

The point is that the argument for all this massive government spending is insane.

Also your point is a non argument since no politician is talking about a 100% repeal. Look at the bill to obamacare "repeal" they are still spending 100 Billion dollars on individuals with high risks.

Even the Republicans are spending way to much it is just not as much as the Democrats.

Hillary was talking about a 15 dollar minimum wage, tax increases and universal health care. Her getting 50% of the vote is an indication that the electorate is brainwashed IMO.

On a personal level, I think healthcare should be covered yes. Personal property is different then a bersons physical well being.

This discussion is about CT economics. You brought up medicaid, which is fine, but what would you cut from that when the vast majority of the states (non federal) dollars is going to kids and the disabled. Are you saying you want to cut kids and the disabled off of a healthcare? Around 85% of medicaid in CT is to kids, seniors, disabled, single parents and pregnant women. The rest varies, but are mostly people covered in medicaid expansion under Obama care and paid for by the federal government. Malloy's new budget cuts out 10,000 more of the single parents (leaves their kids) after 19,000 were cut last year.

SO where do you cut.

[WouldLoveTo]

Originally Posted by CTartist

Sorry but I am going to go a little off topic. I have been thinking about the "hollowing out" and collapsing middle class. But I am thinking this is being done for a reason by some in the middle class. It seems the poor get so much help (via taxation) and the wealthy hide their money so the middle class shoulders the burden. Maybe the middle class are making themselves "poor" by showing little income or putting it in trusts for children etc.

I was thinking this is happening in CT now because of all the taxation. Is my thinking kind of like the laffer curve?

Like the poster below - if you get a legal income you can't do that. And if you don't have kids you can't put it in trusts.

It's more like living in CT is making the middle class poor.

[hvexpatinct]

There are things that can be done to make Medicaid better without spending more money. Like requiring ER copays and tightening the guideline for certain services like orthodontia. The CT plan is probably overstaffed too and would benefit immensely from directing funds away from staffing and towards system modernization.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by hvexpatinct

There are things that can be done to make Medicaid better without spending more money. Like requiring ER copays and tightening the guideline for certain services like orthodontia. The CT plan is probably overstaffed too and would benefit immensely from directing funds away from staffing and towards system modernization.

Agreed there are improvements that can be made to reduce costs. Wholesale attacking a program without knowing the details is what i have an issue with.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by East of the River

On a personal level, I think healthcare should be covered yes. Personal property is different then a bersons physical well being.

This discussion is about CT economics. You brought up medicaid, which is fine, but what would you cut from that when the vast majority of the states (non federal) dollars is going to kids and the disabled. Are you saying you want to cut kids and the disabled off of a healthcare? Around 85% of medicaid in CT is to kids, seniors, disabled, single parents and pregnant women. The rest varies, but are mostly people covered in medicaid expansion under Obama care and paid for by the federal government. Malloy's new budget cuts out 10,000 more of the single parents (leaves their kids) after 19,000 were cut last year.

SO where do you cut.

The fact over 50% of medicaid goes to kids, elderly, disabled doesn't matter to people like this. Even if you could prove without a doubt that without medicaid these people would die they don't care. They believe in the "free market" for every one but themselves.

To get back on CT topic though, what is really funny about CT medicaid that nearly no one here has ever mentioned is BEFORE Obamacare was passed, CT actually had one of the lowest asset limit tests (for medicaid) of all the 50 states. It was something like $2,000 cash and/or $3500 in assets. Obamacare removed the asset limits for medicaid as a stipulation for accepting medicaid expansion to my knowledge.

In some states single people without kids can not actually qualify for medicaid under any circumstances. Florida is one such state.

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by East of the River

On a personal level, I think healthcare should be covered yes. Personal property is different then a bersons physical well being.

This discussion is about CT economics. You brought up medicaid, which is fine, but what would you cut from that when the vast majority of the states (non federal) dollars is going to kids and the disabled. Are you saying you want to cut kids and the disabled off of a healthcare? Around 85% of medicaid in CT is to kids, seniors, disabled, single parents and pregnant women. The rest varies, but are mostly people covered in medicaid expansion under Obama care and paid for by the federal government. Malloy's new budget cuts out 10,000 more of the single parents (leaves their kids) after 19,000 were cut last year.

SO where do you cut.

I bring up Medicaid in a discussion about CT economics because the state spends 23% of the budget on it. It is important to the discussion on CT economics because it is why we have high taxes and debt.
Please see the link: https://ballotpedia.org/Connecticut_...t_and_finances

Note the expenditure does not include the earned income tax credit which is another form of welfare given to the poor. Also note that the K-12 education spending 14% mostly is redistributed to the inner cities. We should cut this as well.

I already answered your questions but here is a summary:

• I think we should cut medicaid by a lot like 85%
• cut food stamps and welfare programs by 85%
• the poor can get jobs and pay for their own health care, just like they did before 1960
• the poor are worse off with free handouts because it breeds dependency & obesity
• CT is going broke because of overspending

[BPt111]

CT is in 2.3 billion in red less than 2 months, nearly 3 billion one year from now

13% of budget is in serious trouble Starting July 1, 15% in next upcoming budget

Real estate agents to rally for a ‘Connecticut we can sell’ | FOX 61

[BPt111]

1,100 workers to lay off by end of week

Malloy is seeking $700 million in givebacks from state workers to help fill what has grown into a projected $2.3 billion hole in the new fiscal year that begins July 1.

It still leave state 1.6 billion more to cut.

Prediction

State aid to cities and towns will trim down
Education funding
Social Service
Sale tax increase, tolls

2018 will be even tougher year for state projected 2.7 billion deficit maybe grown over 3 billion let see how everything goes.

Malloy’s office: Layoff notices could come at end of week | FOX 61

[MrGompers]

And people still think Malloy's a Democrat ?