Blue Shield of California plans to raise rates as much as 59%

quote:

Originally posted by Capt James T:
Speaking of entitlements - did everyone know that, according to the TV, we may be entitled to a free, government sponsored cell phone with 250 minutes a month.

Should say taxpayer sponsored.....

Why on earth am I paying for some random persons cell phone bill?

Just curious, anyone else heard any specifics on this program?

Captain

I understand that it's supposed to be for people that might be in a bad situation (abusive husband) so that they can have a phone that can't be cut off by said abusive husband or what have you.

quote:

Originally posted by Jobe:
Hey you can always go to Cuba for your health care. Michael Moore says its better that the USA’s. So the next time you get sick, go see Castro, he’ll make it all better.

On my God, it's true. You really CAN'T fix stupid!

quote:

Why on earth am I paying for some random persons cell phone bill?

Just curious, anyone else heard any specifics on this program?

I've heard something about it but no specifics either. I'm with you, why the heck should we pay their cell phone bill? I guess we need to find out what's it all about.

quote:

I understand that it's supposed to be for people that might be in a bad situation (abusive husband) so that they can have a phone that can't be cut off by said abusive husband or what have you.

Then she needs to get her butt out and stop messing with the abusive husband.

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:

quote:

Originally posted by dolemitejb:

quote:

Don't tell me this is a result of Obamacare! Don't even try it!

Ok. It's not the result of Obamacare. It actually is, but if you'd rather pretend it's not I guess that fine by me.

Private health insurers have been raising rates and denying legitimate claims for years, so I must ask: Proof?

This is a question that coulkd only be asked by someone who really hasn't been paying attention. What planet are you from? Proof? Really?

quote:

Originally posted by Caduceus:

quote:

Originally posted by Capt James T:
Speaking of entitlements - did everyone know that, according to the TV, we may be entitled to a free, government sponsored cell phone with 250 minutes a month.

Should say taxpayer sponsored.....

Why on earth am I paying for some random persons cell phone bill?

Just curious, anyone else heard any specifics on this program?

Captain

I understand that it's supposed to be for people that might be in a bad situation (abusive husband) so that they can have a phone that can't be cut off by said abusive husband or what have you.

The commercial I saw was for a (seemingly) elder woman whose daughter 'wanted to be able to reach her mother to check on her.'

What exactly did these folks do before cell phones.

Or, another idea, if your elderly mom needs to be kept up with and cant afford a phone of her own, shouldn't she be at home where she has a landline?

Just another entitlement program. Heck, entitled is right in the dang commercial. Folks arent even ashamed of misusing and wasting my money anymore.

I may have to research this issue, I know I didnt see these commercials before the 111th....

Captain

quote:

Originally posted by Jennifer:
I want to know who the heck considers a 26 year old a CHILD!

Obamacare.

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:

quote:

Originally posted by Capt James T:

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:
Well, if 26-year-olds could find jobs with insurance in this country anymore, they wouldn't have to stay on their parents' insurance plan until age 26.

I have to partially disagree with you here. My parents didnt have health insurance when I graduated high school in 93. Didnt have the money to put me through college either. I took responsibility for myself and JOINED THE MILITARY. Three squares a day, taught me a trade and provided health and dental care. All the way up to the point that I made the decision to leave the service and go out on my own.

The majority of college I used the campus health center. They did fine and were cheap. Then, when I graduated, I had more than the college on my resume, I had work experience.

All we did extending the age to 26 was give young adults more reason and ability to live at home, off momma and daddy, for as long as possible. Thats the message we send. Dont take personal responsibility, live off someone else for as long as possible. Here, through entitlement programs, its the way of our world in the here and now......

Captain

So you're comparing the economy of 1993 to the economy of 2011? (And, for that matter, the economy of 2008, 2009 and 2010?) There's no difference?

Tell me, specifically, where are the jobs?

(Very few young people want to give their lives away to the military; they now understand the reality of the failed promises, and no longer buy into the lies. I, for one, will NEVER allow my son to join, and have told my husband that I'd haunt him if he allowed my son to join - if I were to die before that time. It's BS.)

I have 2 sons that quit their jobs 4 years ago to join the military. They plan to make careers there. I think it is an excellant choice for a young person, unless of course if your parents are bleeding heart liberals. Don't worry buttercup, my sons will do the fighting for you.

quote:

The commercial I saw was for a (seemingly) elder woman whose daughter 'wanted to be able to reach her mother to check on her.'

What exactly did these folks do before cell phones.

---------------------------------------------------------
I might as well p*** them off early. Couple of points, have you ever seen an elderly person try to use a cell phone? And you know as well as I do that most of the elderly wouldn't know where the cell phone was, some "relative" would be "borrowing" it. Amazing how some people just seem to sit around and think up new ways to spend taxpayer's money. If the daughter wants her mother to have a cell phone let her buy it for her.

quote:

I have 2 sons that quit their jobs 4 years ago to join the military. They plan to make careers there. I think it is an excellant choice for a young person, unless of course if your parents are bleeding heart liberals. Don't worry buttercup, my sons will do the fighting for you.

Thank them for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Capt James T:

quote:

Originally posted by Caduceus:

quote:

Originally posted by Capt James T:
Speaking of entitlements - did everyone know that, according to the TV, we may be entitled to a free, government sponsored cell phone with 250 minutes a month.
I have seen the adds also, but I haven't researched any of it so I don't know what the conditions are for this particular entitlement , but I do have some thoughts on this and another add.
1st, for someone out of work, it is almost impossible for

Should say taxpayer sponsored.....

Why on earth am I paying for some random persons cell phone bill?

Just curious, anyone else heard any specifics on this program?

Captain

I understand that it's supposed to be for people that might be in a bad situation (abusive husband) so that they can have a phone that can't be cut off by said abusive husband or what have you.

The commercial I saw was for a (seemingly) elder woman whose daughter 'wanted to be able to reach her mother to check on her.'

What exactly did these folks do before cell phones.

Or, another idea, if your elderly mom needs to be kept up with and cant afford a phone of her own, shouldn't she be at home where she has a landline?

Just another entitlement program. Heck, entitled is right in the dang commercial. Folks arent even ashamed of misusing and wasting my money anymore.


Captain

Just a thought or two on this, which I have not done any research on.
We gotta keep in mind that even if you or I go to the store and get a cell phone service for 250 minutes a month, the cost will be about $10.
Considering a $10/month service , if contracted by the thousands, or tens of thousands, the monthly charge would be much less even , and cell phones are probably thrown in by the company for that.
Now, with that thought in mind, a land line is a LOT more expensive, probably at least by a factor of 2 , maybe more.

I have no idea what the conditions are for receiving the entitlement, but I will stretch a guess here- if you are un-employed and trying to get work, nowdays that process pretty much requires you to use a telephone, so if a cell phone can help get someone off un-employment just a week sooner, that would make up for quite a few weeks - heck even months- of paying for 250 minutes.
A similar logic can be used in the case of an elderly person attempting to continue to live at home. Keeping someone at home for an extra month instead of having to put them in a nursing facility will make up for a LOT of months of $10 cell phone.
Keep in mind that I don't know enough about this program (nor will I waste very much time finding out) to be either a supporter or an opposer, just that I can see where a very modest cost could have an extremely large return on investment.

Now, to talk about one that kinda bothers me, primarily because of the cost: remember this add? "I got my power chair at NO cost to ME " ?
These things are a lot more expensive than a cell phone.

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:

quote:

Originally posted by Jennifer:

quote:

Well, of course. The overpaid executives need more vacation homes in Bora Bora. The poor underprivileged things.

Yes or no buttercup, if offered the job they have with their pay and benefits would you take it?

No, I wouldn't. Once I'm in a position to quit my current job (next summer), I'll be done with working for corporate America for good.

I can say "no" without hesitation because money has never ruled my world nor influenced my decisions. I'm much more interested in getting my spirit back....and ensuring my creative side remains intact.

I'm doing some research right now on working from home to, hopefully, find a way to bring in a little income while homeschooling my son. Even if I can't figure something out, I'd never take a job like that. I have to sleep at night.

I don't believe that you would turn down the job, sorry but you had to know I wouldn't. You'd take it and then you would justify the salary and benefits you were given. Lefties always attack the CEOs of large companies, but never make a peep about the outrageous salaries paid to "musicans", actors and actresses, sports "stars", news people, politicians, sports coaches etc etc. The list could go on forever. Let's see some outrage for all those millionaires.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
Now, to talk about one that kinda bothers me, primarily because of the cost: remember this add? "I got my power chair at NO cost to ME " ?

I've learned that, if you dig deep enough, somewhere there is something that two people that seem so far apart on everything else can agree on. I think we have found ours ;o)

Seriously, though, just like the powerchair, the phone should not be advertised as it is. If someone is bad enough off that they need the assistance, they can and should seek it out. But the government enacts these programs and allows the private sector to 'sell' the freebies to everyone who will qualify. Just because you qualify, doesnt mean you need it. We (barely) qualified for WIC when my wife was pregnant, and I cant tell you how many different people we had to tell that we didnt NEED it. Maybe, had we huge car payments and the associated insurance for those cars (and not preplanned the pregnancy in the first place), we might have needed it. Everyone had the attitude 'its a service offered by the government, you should use it.' Instead, they should have had the attitude 'its taxpayer money that is there for the needy.' Thats the entitlement attitude that DRIVES ME INSANE.

Captain

quote:

Originally posted by Jennifer:

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:

quote:

Originally posted by Jennifer:

quote:

Well, of course. The overpaid executives need more vacation homes in Bora Bora. The poor underprivileged things.

Yes or no buttercup, if offered the job they have with their pay and benefits would you take it?

No, I wouldn't. Once I'm in a position to quit my current job (next summer), I'll be done with working for corporate America for good.

I can say "no" without hesitation because money has never ruled my world nor influenced my decisions. I'm much more interested in getting my spirit back....and ensuring my creative side remains intact.

I'm doing some research right now on working from home to, hopefully, find a way to bring in a little income while homeschooling my son. Even if I can't figure something out, I'd never take a job like that. I have to sleep at night.

I don't believe that you would turn down the job, sorry but you had to know I wouldn't. You'd take it and then you would justify the salary and benefits you were given. Lefties always attack the CEOs of large companies, but never make a peep about the outrageous salaries paid to "musicans", actors and actresses, sports "stars", news people, politicians, sports coaches etc etc. The list could go on forever. Let's see some outrage for all those millionaires.

No, I wouldn't take the job. Why ask me if you already "know" the answer.

I've worked in corporate jobs for the last 15 years - with one position at corporate headquarters - and got a taste of how they really operate. It's not for me; however, I've noticed it's a great job for fake Christians.

I'm nothing like you, Jennifer, and so glad of it.

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:

quote:

Originally posted by Capt James T:

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:
Well, if 26-year-olds could find jobs with insurance in this country anymore, they wouldn't have to stay on their parents' insurance plan until age 26.

I have to partially disagree with you here. My parents didnt have health insurance when I graduated high school in 93. Didnt have the money to put me through college either. I took responsibility for myself and JOINED THE MILITARY. Three squares a day, taught me a trade and provided health and dental care. All the way up to the point that I made the decision to leave the service and go out on my own.

The majority of college I used the campus health center. They did fine and were cheap. Then, when I graduated, I had more than the college on my resume, I had work experience.

All we did extending the age to 26 was give young adults more reason and ability to live at home, off momma and daddy, for as long as possible. Thats the message we send. Dont take personal responsibility, live off someone else for as long as possible. Here, through entitlement programs, its the way of our world in the here and now......

Captain

So you're comparing the economy of 1993 to the economy of 2011? (And, for that matter, the economy of 2008, 2009 and 2010?) There's no difference?

Tell me, specifically, where are the jobs?

(Very few young people want to give their lives away to the military; they now understand the reality of the failed promises, and no longer buy into the lies. I, for one, will NEVER allow my son to join, and have told my husband that I'd haunt him if he allowed my son to join - if I were to die before that time. It's BS.)

I have 2 sons that quit their jobs 4 years ago to join the military. They plan to make careers there. I think it is an excellant choice for a young person, unless of course if your parents are bleeding heart liberals. Don't worry buttercup, my sons will do the fighting for you.

What do you want, a medal? I'm sure you'll get plenty of pats on the back from this crowd.

Some people just don't buy into the lies, ferrell, and aren't stupid enough to give their lives to fake causes. Simple as that.

quote:

No, I wouldn't take the job. Why ask me if you already "know" the answer.

I've worked in corporate jobs for the last 15 years - with one position at corporate headquarters - and got a taste of how they really operate. It's not for me; however, I've noticed it's a great job for fake Christians.

I'm nothing like you, Jennifer, and so glad of it.

Well I work for a living, I don't think there's a free ride out there, and I'm honest. I ask you to see if you'd even answer the question and I notice you did ignore it for days. So sit on your high horse attacking the wrong people. How about you or your husband take a cut in pay so your company can hire someone needing a job? Did you ever turn down a pay raise? Of course not. You have that mindset that YOU deserve it but no one else does. I'm not like you either, thank goodness.

quote:

Originally posted by Jennifer:

quote:

No, I wouldn't take the job. Why ask me if you already "know" the answer.

I've worked in corporate jobs for the last 15 years - with one position at corporate headquarters - and got a taste of how they really operate. It's not for me; however, I've noticed it's a great job for fake Christians.

I'm nothing like you, Jennifer, and so glad of it.

Well I work for a living, I don't think there's a free ride out there, and I'm honest. I ask you to see if you'd even answer the question and I notice you did ignore it for days. So sit on your high horse attacking the wrong people. How about you or your husband take a cut in pay so your company can hire someone needing a job? Did you ever turn down a pay raise? Of course not. You have that mindset that YOU deserve it but no one else does. I'm not like you either, thank goodness.

So there's no other possible way to make a good living than to work at a corporate job? Wrong! My husband is doing it now.

Again, you know nothing about me. I never said anything about a free ride. You're assuming, and you're wrong.

quote:

Some people just don't buy into the lies, ferrell, and aren't stupid enough to give their lives to fake causes. Simple as that.

With that attitude, all of your friends and you could be speaking German right now.

Thanks to our military.

quote:

So there's no other possible way to make a good living than to work at a corporate job? Wrong! My husband is doing it now.

Spin it. I ask why your hatred is reserved only for CEOs of large corporations. We don't work at a large corporation either, but I don't spend my time fretting about what others make. I ask if you'd put your money where your mouth is. You want others to do it but there'd be no way you, your husband, or any other liberal would turn down a pay raise or take pay cuts to open up jobs for others.

quote:

Originally posted by Capt James T:

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
Now, to talk about one that kinda bothers me, primarily because of the cost: remember this add? "I got my power chair at NO cost to ME " ?

I've learned that, if you dig deep enough, somewhere there is something that two people that seem so far apart on everything else can agree on. I think we have found ours ;o)

Seriously, though, just like the powerchair, the phone should not be advertised as it is. If someone is bad enough off that they need the assistance, they can and should seek it out. But the government enacts these programs and allows the private sector to 'sell' the freebies to everyone who will qualify. Just because you qualify, doesnt mean you need it. We (barely) qualified for WIC when my wife was pregnant, and I cant tell you how many different people we had to tell that we didnt NEED it. Maybe, had we huge car payments and the associated insurance for those cars (and not preplanned the pregnancy in the first place), we might have needed it. Everyone had the attitude 'its a service offered by the government, you should use it.' Instead, they should have had the attitude 'its taxpayer money that is there for the needy.' Thats the entitlement attitude that DRIVES ME INSANE.

Captain

I'm glad we agree on that point, and here is one that we may or may not. Before you take a hard right wing view tho, give it some thought,

As to the phones, I totally agree that they shouldn't be advertised the way they are, nor should the motorized wheelchair for that matter.
However, this is one of the end results of the mindset that nothing the "government" does is done well, so everything should be "privatized" out. If these entitlements were actually handled by government employees and not private industry, the overt advertising would not take place. Therefore, the end result which we apparently both agree on, would be the case. (Government dosen't spend very much advertising for it's entitlement programs), and I will be willing to put money on the fact they could do it for less cost and control who gets them a lot better.

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:

quote:

Originally posted by Capt James T:

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:

quote:

Originally posted by Capt James T:

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:
Well, if 26-year-olds could find jobs with insurance in this country anymore, they wouldn't have to stay on their parents' insurance plan until age 26.

I have to partially disagree with you here. My parents didnt have health insurance when I graduated high school in 93. Didnt have the money to put me through college either. I took responsibility for myself and JOINED THE MILITARY. Three squares a day, taught me a trade and provided health and dental care. All the way up to the point that I made the decision to leave the service and go out on my own.

The majority of college I used the campus health center. They did fine and were cheap. Then, when I graduated, I had more than the college on my resume, I had work experience.

All we did extending the age to 26 was give young adults more reason and ability to live at home, off momma and daddy, for as long as possible. Thats the message we send. Dont take personal responsibility, live off someone else for as long as possible. Here, through entitlement programs, its the way of our world in the here and now......

Captain

So you're comparing the economy of 1993 to the economy of 2011? (And, for that matter, the economy of 2008 and 2009?) There's no difference?

Tell me, specifically, where are the jobs?

Im saying the 'economy' of my familys situation in 1993 is no different than that of today. We didnt have a thing then, parents jobs were outsourced to Mexico (both worked for a shoe factory) and they were laid off. The little work they could find didnt have insurance.

So, yes, I am comparing the (my) economy of 1993 to today. And the same opportunity I had is available today. The military takes recruits everyday. Dont want to go to war, join the Navy and float around for a couple of years. Take responsibility for your situation and think outside the box.....

Captain

Not everyone is even eligible to join the military. So what do they do?

Again, where are the jobs?

I'm open to being proven wrong, and will accept it, if someone will take up the challenge. Hasn't happened yet.

You are proven wrong several hundred here and all of them have health care and tuition refund etc. I know it is how I worked my way through college. http://fedex.hodesiq.com/caree...search.aspx?User_ID=

Also, it is nice to know with your liberal leanings how you feel about the military but are happy to enjoy all the freedoms they protect!!!

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

I'm glad we agree on that point, and here is one that we may or may not. Before you take a hard right wing view tho, give it some thought,

As to the phones, I totally agree that they shouldn't be advertised the way they are, nor should the motorized wheelchair for that matter.
However, this is one of the end results of the mindset that nothing the "government" does is done well, so everything should be "privatized" out. If these entitlements were actually handled by government employees and not private industry, the overt advertising would not take place. Therefore, the end result which we apparently both agree on, would be the case. (Government dosen't spend very much advertising for it's entitlement programs), and I will be willing to put money on the fact they could do it for less cost and control who gets them a lot better.

My thinking goes a different route. I think it should be illegal to advertise that there are 'specific' programs available. Its a businesses job to make money and they are taking as much advantage of the situation as the folks receiving the phone. Advertising these programs for a specific service at the benefit of a company is no better than what a Washington Lobbyist does (I think they should outlaw them as well). The govt can advertise that help is available and, if someone needs help, they can seek it out, not have it handed to them on a platter.....

Captain

quote:

Originally posted by Capt James T:

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

My thinking goes a different route. I think it should be illegal to advertise that there are 'specific' programs available. Its a businesses job to make money and they are taking as much advantage of the situation as the folks receiving the phone. Advertising these programs for a specific service at the benefit of a company is no better than what a Washington Lobbyist does (I think they should outlaw them as well). The govt can advertise that help is available and, if someone needs help, they can seek it out, not have it handed to them on a platter.....

Captain

Looks like we kinda agree on that. My opinion on private business is they should do their own thing advertise , make as much money as possible, whatever, however, when it comes to them making money off of MY tax dollars , that is a function I would prefer not to turn over to them. I just happen to think that if the Government (you and me) are going to pay for it, the government (in the form of a representative) should oversee it. Having had to deal with the folly of letting go your own people, then paying more to contract them back that TVA got into after the Reagan appointed Runyon fiasco, I don't think much of contracting out what an agency can do a lot cheaper and better to be a responsible thing to do.


As to your point about lobbyist, another thing we can be 100% agreement on. In fact if the happenings of the last day or so were not going on, I may be a proponent of just out and out lining up all the lobbyist and shooting them outright. Can't say that tho, puts me in the same category with Palin and Angle.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by Capt James T:

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

My thinking goes a different route. I think it should be illegal to advertise that there are 'specific' programs available. Its a businesses job to make money and they are taking as much advantage of the situation as the folks receiving the phone. Advertising these programs for a specific service at the benefit of a company is no better than what a Washington Lobbyist does (I think they should outlaw them as well). The govt can advertise that help is available and, if someone needs help, they can seek it out, not have it handed to them on a platter.....

Captain

Looks like we kinda agree on that. My opinion on private business is they should do their own thing advertise , make as much money as possible, whatever, however, when it comes to them making money off of MY tax dollars , that is a function I would prefer not to turn over to them. I just happen to think that if the Government (you and me) are going to pay for it, the government (in the form of a representative) should oversee it. Having had to deal with the folly of letting go your own people, then paying more to contract them back that TVA got into after the Reagan appointed Runyon fiasco, I don't think much of contracting out what an agency can do a lot cheaper and better to be a responsible thing to do.


As to your point about lobbyist, another thing we can be 100% agreement on. In fact if the happenings of the last day or so were not going on, I may be a proponent of just out and out lining up all the lobbyist and shooting them outright. Can't say that tho, puts me in the same category with Palin and Angle.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

quote:

Originally posted by HIFLYER2:

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:

quote:

Originally posted by Capt James T:

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:

quote:

Originally posted by Capt James T:

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:
Well, if 26-year-olds could find jobs with insurance in this country anymore, they wouldn't have to stay on their parents' insurance plan until age 26.

I have to partially disagree with you here. My parents didnt have health insurance when I graduated high school in 93. Didnt have the money to put me through college either. I took responsibility for myself and JOINED THE MILITARY. Three squares a day, taught me a trade and provided health and dental care. All the way up to the point that I made the decision to leave the service and go out on my own.

The majority of college I used the campus health center. They did fine and were cheap. Then, when I graduated, I had more than the college on my resume, I had work experience.

All we did extending the age to 26 was give young adults more reason and ability to live at home, off momma and daddy, for as long as possible. Thats the message we send. Dont take personal responsibility, live off someone else for as long as possible. Here, through entitlement programs, its the way of our world in the here and now......

Captain

So you're comparing the economy of 1993 to the economy of 2011? (And, for that matter, the economy of 2008 and 2009?) There's no difference?

Tell me, specifically, where are the jobs?

Im saying the 'economy' of my familys situation in 1993 is no different than that of today. We didnt have a thing then, parents jobs were outsourced to Mexico (both worked for a shoe factory) and they were laid off. The little work they could find didnt have insurance.

So, yes, I am comparing the (my) economy of 1993 to today. And the same opportunity I had is available today. The military takes recruits everyday. Dont want to go to war, join the Navy and float around for a couple of years. Take responsibility for your situation and think outside the box.....

Captain

Not everyone is even eligible to join the military. So what do they do?

Again, where are the jobs?

I'm open to being proven wrong, and will accept it, if someone will take up the challenge. Hasn't happened yet.

You are proven wrong several hundred here and all of them have health care and tuition refund etc. I know it is how I worked my way through college. http://fedex.hodesiq.com/caree...search.aspx?User_ID=

Also, it is nice to know with your liberal leanings how you feel about the military but are happy to enjoy all the freedoms they protect!!!

Chirp Chirp

quote:

Originally posted by Capt James T:

What is not an earned benefit - Welfare. What else is not an earned benefit - Govt housing. What have people done to 'earn' those benefits.

quote:

Captain

We can actually agree on this as well.

Speaking for myself here; I remain pissed off at these people who have made a career of welfare, and public housing, but I support having a temporary safety net for people who have fallen upon hard times.

A combination of Bill Clinton and the Republican Contract on America caused Congress to pass and Clinton to sign the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" the purpose of which was to limit the amt of time someone could stay on welfare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...Work_Opportunity_Act

Now, a couple of decades later, I don't know what effect it really has had on the situation, but I haven't heard of it being repealed by either the Bush or the Obama administration, so I assume it is still in force.
What the real world is, I don't know., I'm not that close to anyone in that type of situation.

However, while looking around to respond to you, I ran across this :
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What...pent_on_entitlements

Dosen't mean I'm still not pissed off, but maybe I am able to accept that welfare is an attempt to be the best of a lot of bad choices. In relative terms, it is about 2% of the Fed budget
and we probably spend more money keeping pot smokers in federal pens.
Like I have said before, you could do away with the entire program and it wouldn't make any difference to the overall financial problem we are in, just make working white people have a warmer, fuzzier feeling.
There was a time when welfare meant "commodity food", - government bought food from farmers helping to stabilize their prices, and used that food for schools, and welfare handouts.
I don't know why that particular way of operating ceased, maybe it is just less expensive to electronically add some dollars each week or month or whenever it comes in, to a plastic card account.
When I was in school, all our school food came from "commodities" and IMHO they had some of the best cheese !
Also back then we had the "County Home" for the destitute. Long gone now, counties left it for the state who pushed that care up to the Feds.
Maybe some of these teabaggers that think so highly of "States Rights" should be clammering to get some of that safety net away from the feds and bring it back to the local county. Yea, like THAT would ever happen

This is from the last link you posted:

quote:

A book "The Complete Idiots Guide to Economics" written in 2003 cites the U.S. Government budget as reporting that entitlements make up approximately 65 percent of our budget, distributed as follows:
Social Security: 23%
Medicare: 12%
Medicaid: 7%
Other Means-tested entitlements: 6%
Mandatory payments (pensions, etc.): 6%
Net interest on debt: 11%

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What...ements#ixzz1AalijSQQ

Actually, the 2% number comes from a specific segment of the Welfare program:

quote:

Within the Welfare program Family & Children only uses 80.1 billion which is around 2% of the federal budget.

Actually, the welfare program as a whole was about 9.9% of the overall budget, according to the website:

quote:

Entitlements is a broad category whereas most people generally mean the Welfare Program. USgovernmentspending.com lists 2009 expenses budgeted for Welfare at 395.4 billion compared to 736.2 billion for pensions, 784.2 billion for health, 821.7 billion for defense (not including emergency requests for Iraq), and 91.7 for education (other data not listed) with a total of 3,997.2 billion of a total federal expense.

Captain

quote:

Originally posted by Capt James T:
This is from the last link you posted:

quote:

A book "The Complete Idiots Guide to Economics" written in 2003 cites the U.S. Government budget as reporting that entitlements make up approximately 65 percent of our budget, distributed as follows:
Social Security: 23%
Medicare: 12%
Medicaid: 7%
Other Means-tested entitlements: 6%
Mandatory payments (pensions, etc.): 6%
Net interest on debt: 11%

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What...ements#ixzz1AalijSQQ

Actually, the 2% number comes from a specific segment of the Welfare program:

quote:

Within the Welfare program Family & Children only uses 80.1 billion which is around 2% of the federal budget.

Actually, the welfare program as a whole was about 9.9% of the overall budget, according to the website:

quote:

Entitlements is a broad category whereas most people generally mean the Welfare Program. USgovernmentspending.com lists 2009 expenses budgeted for Welfare at 395.4 billion compared to 736.2 billion for pensions, 784.2 billion for health, 821.7 billion for defense (not including emergency requests for Iraq), and 91.7 for education (other data not listed) with a total of 3,997.2 billion of a total federal expense.

Captain

Well , I'm a little confused. I thought we were talking about welfare to include public housing. Ss dent in the overall budget.
On the other hand, now you are throwing in SS and Medicare and the rest of the "entitlements". Now, that brings me back to where we started-
To borrow a few phrases from you, and summarize-

V A benefits - benefits YOU EARNED

Social Security /Medicare = Benefits I worked for and paid into from the time I was in the 7th grade, in your vernacular , benefits I EARNED
Yes , I agree that if the entire budget is considered, SS and Medicare take a large percentage, but the fund is still in relatively good shape all things considered, and don't forget we paid into it.

Pensions- Benefits EARNED by those people who , well, earned them. (my pension is not a government pension BTW , but one I invested in along with the 2 major employers I have had)

I guess you think that if you are due a benefit because you were in the military, and that all others are just pond scumb and not due an entitlement even tho they paid for it.
I thought we were getting close on some issues. Now, I am beginning to doubt that.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by Capt James T:
This is from the last link you posted:

quote:

A book "The Complete Idiots Guide to Economics" written in 2003 cites the U.S. Government budget as reporting that entitlements make up approximately 65 percent of our budget, distributed as follows:
Social Security: 23%
Medicare: 12%
Medicaid: 7%
Other Means-tested entitlements: 6%
Mandatory payments (pensions, etc.): 6%
Net interest on debt: 11%

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What...ements#ixzz1AalijSQQ

Actually, the 2% number comes from a specific segment of the Welfare program:

quote:

Within the Welfare program Family & Children only uses 80.1 billion which is around 2% of the federal budget.

Actually, the welfare program as a whole was about 9.9% of the overall budget, according to the website:

quote:

Entitlements is a broad category whereas most people generally mean the Welfare Program. USgovernmentspending.com lists 2009 expenses budgeted for Welfare at 395.4 billion compared to 736.2 billion for pensions, 784.2 billion for health, 821.7 billion for defense (not including emergency requests for Iraq), and 91.7 for education (other data not listed) with a total of 3,997.2 billion of a total federal expense.

Captain

Well , I'm a little confused. I thought we were talking about welfare to include public housing. Ss dent in the overall budget.
On the other hand, now you are throwing in SS and Medicare and the rest of the "entitlements". Now, that brings me back to where we started-
To borrow a few phrases from you, and summarize-

V A benefits - benefits YOU EARNED

Social Security /Medicare = Benefits I worked for and paid into from the time I was in the 7th grade, in your vernacular , benefits I EARNED
Yes , I agree that if the entire budget is considered, SS and Medicare take a large percentage, but the fund is still in relatively good shape all things considered, and don't forget we paid into it.

Pensions- Benefits EARNED by those people who , well, earned them. (my pension is not a government pension BTW , but one I invested in along with the 2 major employers I have had)

I guess you think that if you are due a benefit because you were in the military, and that all others are just pond scumb and not due an entitlement even tho they paid for it.
I thought we were getting close on some issues. Now, I am beginning to doubt that.

Actually, I was talking about the welfare program, which (in that particular year) accounted for about 10%. The OVERALL budget affect of social security, govt employees (I'm not sure if the military members fall here or in the defense budget for reporting, but that is neither here nor there, because I am referring to the 10% for welfare), etc, actually amounted to about 65% of the budget.

Your mentioned 2% was just the family and children subsegment of welfare that year (which I am assuming is somehow related to this program: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/). I wanted to make sure all the numbers from the article were represented correctly......

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
I guess you think that if you are due a benefit because you were in the military, and that all others are just pond scumb and not due an entitlement even tho they paid for it.
I thought we were getting close on some issues. Now, I am beginning to doubt that.

And actually, there are some in the welfare group that havent done anything to 'earn' the benefit, other than getting pregnant and spitting out children. That is probably a small percentage of the overall 'welfare' segment. Believe it or not, my biggest gripe is the 'entitlement' mentality that we breed with the administration of some of these programs. There is no longer an understanding by many of the recipients regarding where the money comes from. Like we were discussing, 'free' cell phone, 'free' power chair. Its not free when I pay for it every month. But certain political groups dont want that segment to understand where the money comes from, they want the receipients to think the government gave it to them. That way they think the government is taking care of them. When its actually you and I taking care of them.

I recently heard (wish I knew who said it):

"Cut my taxes and assign me one postal worker and two welfare receipients, I'll pay them directly and they can work for me." At least I'd have a better chance of getting something back for what I paid them if I paid them directly.....

Captain

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:

quote:

Originally posted by Jobe:
Hey you can always go to Cuba for your health care. Michael Moore says its better that the USA’s. So the next time you get sick, go see Castro, he’ll make it all better.

No one said anything about going to Cuba, Jobe. I said America's no longer number one - in anything, other than invading and rebuilding other countries.

Number 1 in invading, maybe, but certainly not in rebuilding. Ask the Iraqis about such "re-built" systems as their electrical grid and wastewater treatment infrastructure.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:

quote:

Originally posted by Jobe:
Hey you can always go to Cuba for your health care. Michael Moore says its better that the USA’s. So the next time you get sick, go see Castro, he’ll make it all better.

No one said anything about going to Cuba, Jobe. I said America's no longer number one - in anything, other than invading and rebuilding other countries.

Number 1 in invading, maybe, but certainly not in rebuilding. Ask the Iraqis about such "re-built" systems as their electrical grid and wastewater treatment infrastructure.

Betern nuttin,

The Iraqi power grid was a ramshackle wreck when we invaded. Army engineers found no plans for the thing, none were ever prepared. Saddam route electricity to the areas he favored and let the other areas get a couple of hours a day. The US let the people of Iraq share the misery by routing and rationing electricity so all got the same number of hours. Entrepreneurs set up a checkerboard of generators to supply neighborhoods when the national grid was not available.

We didn't re-build what we didn't destroy. True, in the first invasion to liberate Kuwait, we did destroy generating capacity. However, during the last invasion, we dropped chaff to short out the system without destroying capacity. Since then, we've repaired and built more capacity -- more than the nation ever had. US funds paid for part of the early work -- Iraqi funds now.

As to sewage treatment, we did build some -- the terrorists kept blowing them up. Insert your own macabre joke! Still, they now have more than they had before.

If, Saddam hadn't built over 20 palace complexes, some larger than Disneyland, with funds supposed to be used to develop the country, it wouldn't be in the shape we found it. Hope Saddam and his corrupt cronies the UN let slide share the same pit in Hell!