• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

Conservative said:
Really, Obama vs. Palin, you would vote Obama? interesting, How could Palin do worse than Obama?
Click to expand...

According to your logic, she is actually a socialist, and we can't have that.

P.S. Dude, she's a complete idiot. Even in your warped world if we compare her to Obama.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I've seen you in other threads support Palin.

So by your logic that I've seen. That means you directly support Socialism.

Fantastic, I will note this in my log.

"DP log, Stardate 4013.93..."
Click to expand...

I support state's rights, and if the people of the state choose socialism, so be it. I have the ability to move from state to state and did it a number of times when I was working. What you fail to undertand is our govt. is trying and failing to do what Alaska has done and that is take care of all the people in the country. I prefer the Alaska approach letting Alaskans take care of other Alaskans.
 
Jetboogieman said:
According to your logic, she is actually a socialist, and we can't have that.

P.S. Dude, she's a complete idiot. Even in your warped world if we compare her to Obama.
Click to expand...
Not a complete idiot, she has managed to make a few million $$ since quitting her day job as governor of Alaska....:2razz:
 
winston53660 said:
12 billion are the matching federal funds for medicaid.
Click to expand...

There would be no matching funds if TX opts out of Medicaid. The matching funds have to do with Obamacare and the mandate of the Federal govt. to the states.
 
Conservative said:
There would be no matching funds if TX opts out of Medicaid. The matching funds have to do with Obamacare and the mandate of the Federal govt. to the states.
Click to expand...


No, these funds are what Texas already receives in the medicaid program.
 
winston53660 said:
No, these funds are what Texas already receives in the medicaid program.
Click to expand...

The Federal Govt. only funds the states what it mandates as related to Medicaid. If TX opts out there will be no matching funds and thus no strings attached. I am confident that the people of TX will do what is right as it always has.
 
Taboon said:
Correct, it has nothing to do with "Obamacare".
Click to expand...

You don't seem to know much about Obamacare. Suggest you read the filings by the 20 or so states that are fighting Obamacare. It is an unfunded mandate which was made illegal during the Clinton years by the Republican Congress.
 
Conservative said:
You don't seem to know much about Obamacare. Suggest you read the filings by the 20 or so states that are fighting Obamacare. It is an unfunded mandate which was made illegal during the Clinton years by the Republican Congress.
Click to expand...

So, the $200 Billion+ a year that the federal government spent on Medicaid in 2008 and 2009 relates to "Obamacare" even though the law hadn't even passed yet? Maybe I'm misunderstanding where you are coming from here but it really seems like you are suggesting that the federal government did not fund any Medicaid programs until after "Obamacare" was passed. That is patently false if that is what you are suggesting.

Fiscal Year 2010 Budget in Brief
 
Taboon said:
So, the $200 Billion+ a year that the federal government spent on Medicaid in 2008 and 2009 relates to "Obamacare" even though the law hadn't even passed yet? Maybe I'm misunderstanding where you are coming from here but it really seems like you are suggesting that the federal government did not fund any Medicaid programs until after "Obamacare" was passed. That is patently false if that is what you are suggesting.

Fiscal Year 2010 Budget in Brief
Click to expand...

No, the 200 billion that the Federal Govt. spends on Medicaid is due to the mandates from the Federal Govt. to the states. Medicaid is a state sponsored healthcare program for low income people. Why are the Feds involved at all?
 
Conservative said:
No, the 200 billion that the Federal Govt. spends on Medicaid is due to the mandates from the Federal Govt. to the states. Medicaid is a state sponsored healthcare program for low income people. Why are the Feds involved at all?
Click to expand...

The fact is they are and because they are the states would have to either take on the additional tax burden if the federal government no longer funded the program or cut services.
 
Taboon said:
The fact is they are and because they are the states would have to either take on the additional tax burden if the federal government no longer funded the program or cut services.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question, why is the Federal Govt. involved in a state run insurance program for the poor? The problem still lies in the mandates from the Federal Govt. Many states are going to opt out of Medcaid, why? Think that the states want to kill the poor?
 
Conservative said:
You didn't answer the question, why is the Federal Govt. involved in a state run insurance program for the poor? The problem still lies in the mandates from the Federal Govt. Many states are going to opt out of Medcaid, why? Think that the states want to kill the poor?
Click to expand...

Sigh, like I have said in previous posts, I don't necessarily disagree that the states should take on more of the responsibility from the federal government in regards to some programs (including Medicaid). Yes, it is state managed but it was enacted with the passing of a federal act (through Title XIX of the Social Security Act) in 1965. That's part of the reason why the federal government is involved rightly or wrongly. And here's the thing, it's at least 50% funded with federal dollars at this time depending on the state you live in. So, if a state decides to opt out of Medicaid while instituting their own program they are going to have to cut costs by at least 50% in order to not have to allocate additional state funds to the new program (if they decide the same services should be provided). Based on what I have seen no states have a good solid proposal in place that would do such a thing, not even Texas (Is Texas really thinking of opting out of Medicaid?). So, right now it just seems like a bunch of pie in the sky rhetoric at this time with a bunch of ranters and ravers saying they can do a better job at a significantly reduced cost. I'll wait and see, can't buy much into it at this time.
 
Taboon said:
Sigh, like I have said in previous posts, I don't necessarily disagree that the states should take on more of the responsibility from the federal government in regards to some programs (including Medicaid). Yes, it is state managed but it was enacted with the passing of a federal act (through Title XIX of the Social Security Act) in 1965. That's part of the reason why the federal government is involved rightly or wrongly. And here's the thing, it's at least 50% funded with federal dollars at this time depending on the state you live in. So, if a state decides to opt out of Medicaid while instituting their own program they are going to have to cut costs by at least 50% in order to not have to allocate additional state funds to the new program (if they decide the same services should be provided). Based on what I have seen no states have a good solid proposal in place that would do such a thing, not even Texas (Is Texas really thinking of opting out of Medicaid?). So, right now it just seems like a bunch of pie in the sky rhetoric at this time with a bunch of ranters and ravers saying they can do a better job at a significantly reduced cost. I'll wait and see, can't buy much into it at this time.
Click to expand...

Only in the liberal world is "pie in the sky" rhetoric about taking personal responsibility. Yes, Medicaid is 50-50 but that 50-50 comes with a lot of strings attached including costs due to Federal regulations and restrictions. Opting out doesn't add 50% to the costs as there is no question that anything with Federal strings costs more than intended and does less than intended. We currently have a 14+ trillion dollar debt run up by that govt. that you and others seem to want to give our healthcare program to and the question is why?

Our Founders never envisioned a Central Govt. this size and that was for a reason. They believed that power corrupts and that is what we are seeing today with this massive size of the Federal govt. TX like most of the states in the country is seeing a shortfall but TX will handle that shortfall like any household, they will cut expenses since revenue growth is highly suspect. Anything run by the Federal Govt. costs more than intended, does less than intended, and never has solved a problem.

History shows what happens when one buys into the Federal Govt. solving personal social problems. States opting out is the only thing they can do to cut the Federal strings attached to the giving of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
 
majora$$hole said:
so our military isn't keeping us safe with all that money we give them? is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...

Our military hasn't been deployed to the border thus not given the chance to keep us safe.
 
Conservative said:
Why? Because we have a CIC more interesting in getting votes than keeping the people along the border safe.
Click to expand...
not just along the border but the country as a whole. answer me this. how is the country safe if we have a bunch of illegals working at the ports?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom