McConnell Video Touts GOP: ‘We Are The Party Of Compassion’

Also SSI is only administered through Social Security, but its source of funds comes from the Treasury.

Fiddytree said:

But what I am trying to tell you is that we have to fight like crazy to just get federal law enforced, getting state services funded or created. I wouldn't in my wildest dreams trust the states.

Click to expand...

And because people have not trusted the state we have a fast approaching 17 trillion dollar debt sinkhole and a federal government that thinks nothing of heaping future debt on current problems. That old saying "if it aint broke dont fix it" certainly does NOT apply...its hard broke and isnt getting any better. The current system is corrupt, it encourages corruption and there are far too many people that have found government assistance to be an appropriate way of life.

VanceMack said:

And because people have not trusted the state we have a fast approaching 17 trillion dollar debt sinkhole and a federal government that thinks nothing of heaping future debt on current problems. That old saying "if it aint broke dont fix it" certainly does NOT apply...its hard broke and isnt getting any better. The current system is corrupt, it encourages corruption and there are far too many people that have found government assistance to be an appropriate way of life.

Click to expand...

But this idea doesn't actually help the people who fall under the category "through no fault of their own."

Fiddytree said:

But this idea doesn't actually help the people who fall under the category "through no fault of their own."

Click to expand...

Where appropriately applied, social services should not go away. I stress where appropriately applied. Its anecdotal so take it for what it is worth, but I will give just one of thousands of examples where it is NOT appropriately applied (anecdotal, but happens several times a day in the hospital. This was yesterday). 21 year old young woman presents in the ER claiming extreme pain and anxiety. 'NEEDS' meds...'must' have them. Quick background and assessment and low and behold, she is on her 4th hospital of the day, and her and her boyfriend are hitting every ER they can to get pain meds. When called on the knowledge, she claims suicidal ideation and threatens to cut herself in the parking lot. Hospital bills Medicare and SS for ER visit, complete labs, psych assessment...in total...about 3.5k per visit per day. Her 'disability'? Hell if I know. She is insulin dependent diabetic but other than that absolutely healthy and capable. She is 'in the system' and will be for the rest of her life. Too easy to get on, too easy to stay on, and too many opportunities for abuse. The fed system is a cancer. The numbers of young physically healthy able bodied individuals on disability is climbing. It wont get better. It is a self perpetuating system. State and local services would offer better oversight and might make people aware of just how much money is being shoveled into that debt hole.

There is a difference between "no fault of their own" and classic, chronic malingerers. Because the fed pot is so immense, care providers profit from these types of people. And going back to the 'compassion' part...I personally think the WORST THING we can do to people like that is to continue to facilitate them to live that existence for the next 50+ years.

Fisher said:

You mean because they did not yield to liberal extortion they are are evil people, dontcha? Obama is the one who said he would not accept any legislation to avoid sequester that did not involve raising taxes so the GOP did not let themselves be blackmailed. No more; no less.

Click to expand...

No, thats what you mean. Imo, both sides are running neck to neck when it comes to misleading and extortion. Although, the Republicans did get one "pants on fire" and the Democrats didn't get any. And while the Democrats got one almost true and a couple half truths, the Republicans didn't get any truths at all....

Fact checking the sequester: a round-up - The Washington Post

Apparently, the GOP congressmen didn't like the sequester screwing up their flight plans otherwise they would have just let the FAA dangle and the public be damned. So it's obvious that unless an issue effects them personally, they could care less.

Moot said:

No, thats what you mean. Imo, both sides are running neck to neck when it comes to misleading and extortion. Although, the Republicans did get one "pants on fire" and the Democrats didn't get any. And while the Democrats got one almost true and a couple half truths, the Republicans didn't get any truths at all....

Fact checking the sequester: a round-up - The Washington Post

Apparently, the GOP congressmen didn't like the sequester screwing up their flight plans otherwise they would have just let the FAA dangle and the public be damned. So it's obvious that unless an issue effects them personally, they could care less.

Click to expand...

Rich people's private jets would be delayed. You should have celebrated Sequestration as sticking it to the big guy.

Fisher said:

Rich people's private jets would be delayed. You should have celebrated Sequestration as sticking it to the big guy.

Click to expand...

Most congressmen don't have private jets and even if they did they're usually located at private airports. But do keep showing your extreme bias because it makes good target practice.

My Dad uses the VA hospital and because the sequester funding was cut for VA hospitals they had to lay off some of their doctors. So the delay for getting an appointment now can take almost three months. But since that doesn't effect our congressmen personally they could care less.

Fiddytree said:

Many can be considered compassionate conservatives. However, the Tea Party has declared war on that, and some of the base have labeled Bush-style compassionate conservatism as "too liberal." Myself, I was more aligned with that style of conservatism than most other styles.

Click to expand...

You mean big gubment liberalism with a cowboy hat?

VanceMack said:

Where appropriately applied, social services should not go away. I stress where appropriately applied. Its anecdotal so take it for what it is worth, but I will give just one of thousands of examples where it is NOT appropriately applied (anecdotal, but happens several times a day in the hospital. This was yesterday). 21 year old young woman presents in the ER claiming extreme pain and anxiety. 'NEEDS' meds...'must' have them. Quick background and assessment and low and behold, she is on her 4th hospital of the day, and her and her boyfriend are hitting every ER they can to get pain meds. When called on the knowledge, she claims suicidal ideation and threatens to cut herself in the parking lot. Hospital bills Medicare and SS for ER visit, complete labs, psych assessment...in total...about 3.5k per visit per day. Her 'disability'? Hell if I know. She is insulin dependent diabetic but other than that absolutely healthy and capable. She is 'in the system' and will be for the rest of her life. Too easy to get on, too easy to stay on, and too many opportunities for abuse. The fed system is a cancer. The numbers of young physically healthy able bodied individuals on disability is climbing. It wont get better. It is a self perpetuating system. State and local services would offer better oversight and might make people aware of just how much money is being shoveled into that debt hole.

There is a difference between "no fault of their own" and classic, chronic malingerers. Because the fed pot is so immense, care providers profit from these types of people. And going back to the 'compassion' part...I personally think the WORST THING we can do to people like that is to continue to facilitate them to live that existence for the next 50+ years.

Click to expand...

To the bolded, what does that have to do with drug seeking behavior?

You didn't say she was disabled, but you allude to it.

There is a difference, but withdrawing Federal support for the "no fault of their own" people and leave them to the mercy of a state who's legislators don't care, is not the answer. Trying to get state and local attention for those who need and deserve the help under that designation, is extremely hard. Even with laws in place that should make them provide assistance.

Gina said:

To the bolded, what does that have to do with drug seeking behavior?

You didn't say she was disabled, but you allude to it.

There is a difference, but withdrawing Federal support for the "no fault of their own" people and leave them to the mercy of a state who's legislators don't care, is not the answer. Trying to get state and local attention for those who need and deserve the help under that designation, is extremely hard. Even with laws in place that should make them provide assistance.

Click to expand...

That is the extent of her 'disability'. She is on Medicare and SS. She is one of many people we see that are no different. She is 21...in the blink of an eye she will be no different than any of our 51 year old frequent flyers...the ones that are in and out of psychiatric facilities 15-20 times a year at a cost of about $1700 a day. There are "Million Dollar Murray"s all over the place.

gladwell dot com - million-dollar murray

The Fed has proven it is not the answer. All we are doing is playing hide and seek with the bottom line. As long as we can dump the cost onto the fed, the fed can pass it on to future generations. Its insanity.

VanceMack said:

That is the extent of her 'disability'. She is on Medicare and SS. She is one of many people we see that are no different. She is 21...in the blink of an eye she will be no different than any of our 51 year old frequent flyers...the ones that are in and out of psychiatric facilities 15-20 times a year at a cost of about $1700 a day. There are "Million Dollar Murray"s all over the place.

gladwell dot com - million-dollar murray

The Fed has proven it is not the answer. All we are doing is playing hide and seek with the bottom line. As long as we can dump the cost onto the fed, the fed can pass it on to future generations. Its insanity.

Click to expand...

We are in agreement, there are loads of people gaming and using the system. We need to work on getting them out. She may have been designated disabled for a legitimate reason, but has clearly fallen into substance abuse. What's the answer? We shouldn't punish people who have real need because of people like that. Did she get her drugs? Can you say?

Yes, Million Dollar Murrays are everywhere. I knew one in San Diego.

The Fed is not the answer for people like that but you have admitted, people who through no fault of their own need assistance. The state is not doing the job and without federal assistance, they would end up in the most destitute of situations.

Gina said:

We are in agreement, there are loads of people gaming and using the system. We need to work on getting them out. She may have been designated disabled for a legitimate reason, but has clearly fallen into substance abuse. What's the answer? We shouldn't punish people who have real need because of people like that. Did she get her drugs? Can you say?

Yes, Million Dollar Murrays are everywhere. I knew one in San Diego.

The Fed is not the answer for people like that but you have admitted, people who through no fault of their own need assistance. The state is not doing the job and without federal assistance, they would end up in the most destitute of situations.

Click to expand...

The state isnt doing the job because we have created this monolithic federal system that will. The problem is legend. Abuse is rampant. People that need support cant get it it. Resources are stretched too thin. Resources that should be allocated to recipients are burned in bureaucracy. Federal oversight is horrible. The cost...it should make people shudder. What we are doing with health and social care in this country is no different than what home owners did during the housing bubble...run up massive debts, dump all the debt under the umbrella of a new or refinanced ARM, then lose everything when the adjustable rate becomes unsustainable. In my eyes it is criminal to dump the responsibility for peoples care today on future generations. So...the answer...


Transition all social services (with the exception of Social Security pensions) to the states. It would take a definite transition plan...5-10 years. It would require some real effort. It would definitely mean higher state taxes but that would be offset by federal tax cuts. There HAS to be changes. What we are doing is not sustainable, but as long as it isnt 'our' problem, no one cares.

VanceMack said:

The state isnt doing the job because we have created this monolithic federal system that will. The problem is legend. Abuse is rampant. People that need support cant get it it. Resources are stretched too thin. Resources that should be allocated to recipients are burned in bureaucracy. Federal oversight is horrible. The cost...it should make people shudder. What we are doing with health and social care in this country is no different than what home owners did during the housing bubble...run up massive debts, dump all the debt under the umbrella of a new or refinanced ARM, then lose everything when the adjustable rate becomes unsustainable. In my eyes it is criminal to dump the responsibility for peoples care today on future generations. So...the answer...


Transition all social services (with the exception of Social Security pensions) to the states. It would take a definite transition plan...5-10 years. It would require some real effort. It would definitely mean higher state taxes but that would be offset by federal tax cuts. There HAS to be changes. What we are doing is not sustainable, but as long as it isnt 'our' problem, no one cares.

Click to expand...

The state isn't doing the job it is already mandated to do, which is meager enough. It had nothing to do with federal funds either. I know of cases in the disability community where parents had to sue for assistance they were already due. Federal funds, I know for a fact, had nothing to do with it.

I agree, Federal oversight is a problem, then we should be attacking that, not denying people who you have already agreed, deserve assistance.

5-10 years and to transition, at what level? Then 3-5 years for much of it to suffer cuts. This is what happened with lottery money all over the nation. This huge influx of found money was supposed to go for education and instead of supplementing education, the funds became education as the original money was siphoned off. The same would be true for money allocated for these social services, because at the state level, there is little support. These people do not have the powerful lobbyists with which to fight.

I agree, there has to be change, but why not change the bureaucracy to be more efficient instead?

Gina said:

The state isn't doing the job it is already mandated to do, which is meager enough. It had nothing to do with federal funds either. I know of cases in the disability community where parents had to sue for assistance they were already due. Federal funds, I know for a fact, had nothing to do with it.

I agree, Federal oversight is a problem, then we should be attacking that, not denying people who you have already agreed, deserve assistance.

5-10 years and to transition, at what level? Then 3-5 years for much of it to suffer cuts. This is what happened with lottery money all over the nation. This huge influx of found money was supposed to go for education and instead of supplementing education, the funds became education as the original money was siphoned off. The same would be true for money allocated for these social services, because at the state level, there is little support. These people do not have the powerful lobbyists with which to fight.

I agree, there has to be change, but why not change the bureaucracy to be more efficient instead?

Click to expand...

I simply have no faith that left in the fed hands this problem will ever do anything but get worse. I believe in citizens being responsible. Local and state elections are far more easy to get involved and stay involved in. Left to the fed, our great grandkids are going to be handed a 50 trillion dollar debt before they earn their first dime. Left to the fed, citizens of the state dont see those services as 'real' or costing anyone anything. And why should they? rather than pay for those abuses, we let future citizens do it.

Henrin said:

This is where the people realize the governments only tool is force. You don't have to like the truth for it to be the truth.

Click to expand...

That's funny, I feel the same way about Big Business. LOL!

VanceMack said:

I simply have no faith that left in the fed hands this problem will ever do anything but get worse. I believe in citizens being responsible. Local and state elections are far more easy to get involved and stay involved in. Left to the fed, our great grandkids are going to be handed a 50 trillion dollar debt before they earn their first dime. Left to the fed, citizens of the state dont see those services as 'real' or costing anyone anything. And why should they? rather than pay for those abuses, we let future citizens do it.

Click to expand...

Depends on what you're talking about. In much of the state level, I would say the opposite.

Second of all, I noticed that those who need the services seem to be a passing thought, and your macro view about the debt predominates every facet of the conversation.

Fiddytree said:

Depends on what you're talking about. In much of the state level, I would say the opposite.

Second of all, I noticed that those who need the services seem to be a passing thought, and your macro view about the debt predominates every facet of the conversation.

Click to expand...

If thats how you choose to view my position, I suppose I couldnt convince you otherwise. Ive worked with these populations for about 7 years in both a government, contract, and private capacity. I obligate personal time and resources as well as business resources. I HAVE to view the 'macro' picture because I understand how the services are run. For example, I understand the services for many states are contracted to private 'non profit' agencies...agencies which consume about half of the resources in administrative fees and salaries for execs, leaving about half of a steadily dwindling pot for social work services, case workers, and clients. Ive seen case management workloads go from an industry recommended 25-30 maximum up to as high as 120 per provider, per week. You can imagine the toll that has not only on case workers but also recipients.
My agency last year provided holiday assistance meals to 55 families and complete Christmas' for 110 kids. I work regularly to get mentally handicapped adults into care facilities when their families can no longer provide for them. I dont talk about the populations...I work with the populations 7 days a week. You can think that means I make the services a passing thought. The reality is....without the fiscal resources NONE of those services are rendered. That doesnt at all change the human side of the problem and I'm sorry (not really...but its what we say) but I will ALWAYS see a system that promotes and enables dependency as the exact opposite of 'compassionate'.

And yes...I DO tend to focus on the debt aspect of this when the discussion is where the services should reside. Its critical. Social spending continues to climb in every state and in the fed. If people dont start addressing it as a real and legitimate concern, it will all become irrelevant. But can you show me where I have suggested needed services should be cut? All I have stated is that under the current system the debt will threaten ALL services and the instances of fraud keep services from getting to those who truly need the services. Make that mean what you want. I get that I can be kinda crass and direct. Im a realist. If that translates to "I dont care"...well...you couldnt possibly guess how much.

I dont know about your state...but in most states election involvement is dramatically lower than during the federal elections. It is far easier to get involved with party caucuses at the state level. It is not at all difficult to get on your state representatives calendar. Its very easy to get involved in community. I am the past chair of the county DV coalition and am a current voting member of the state DV Counsel. We meet with the governor or Lt Governor once a month and once a year hold the meetings at the state capital specifically to discuss state legislation. Its just not that hard to have a voice at the local and state level...especially when your organization includes newsletters, cameras, and recordings of meetings.

THAT we have spent several generations turning over responsibility to the Fed is undeniable. Its all we know. But what we know...is it is not working.

Council, dammit...Council. I hate when I do that. And married to an English professor...

VanceMack said:

I simply have no faith that left in the fed hands this problem will ever do anything but get worse. I believe in citizens being responsible. Local and state elections are far more easy to get involved and stay involved in. Left to the fed, our great grandkids are going to be handed a 50 trillion dollar debt before they earn their first dime. Left to the fed, citizens of the state dont see those services as 'real' or costing anyone anything. And why should they? rather than pay for those abuses, we let future citizens do it.

Click to expand...

I heard about this podcast: Trends With Benefits | This American Life

Very interesting. The number of people on disability has skyrocketed due to a loophole states have found in the welfare reform act in the '90's. I haven't had a chance to listen to it all. The state pays companies to get people off welfare, which the state pays for, and onto federal disability. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this information. Maybe you know something more about it or another poster knows. It's an unintended consequence of putting welfare on the states.

If this is true, I feel more strongly about this post you responded to. States will find a way to get out of paying what they can and without strong support for people who need assistance due to no fault of their own.

Also, I think it's clear the fed needs to crack down on this practice. That would be a start.

Gina said:

I heard about this podcast: Trends With Benefits | This American Life

Very interesting. The number of people on disability has skyrocketed due to a loophole states have found in the welfare reform act in the '90's. I haven't had a chance to listen to it all. The state pays companies to get people off welfare, which the state pays for, and onto federal disability. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this information. Maybe you know something more about it or another poster knows. It's an unintended consequence of putting welfare on the states.

If this is true, I feel more strongly about this post you responded to. States will find a way to get out of paying what they can and without strong support for people who need assistance due to no fault of their own.

Also, I think it's clear the fed needs to crack down on this practice. That would be a start.

Click to expand...

That would ABSOLUTELY be a problem...if the entire system is not reformed. The lions share of tax money taken today is FEDERAL. That needs to change in order for this to work. The fed cant expect to tax at the same rate and then dump responsibility of on states. Right now a lot of state agencies, Shelter and DV Coalitions are dependent on grant money received from the Fed. Thats where the tax money is going...thats why the system is so badly broken. If the states were able to tax appropriately they could fund those programs appropriately without having to beg the fed for money their own citizens have already paid.

VanceMack said:

That would ABSOLUTELY be a problem...if the entire system is not reformed. The lions share of tax money taken today is FEDERAL. That needs to change in order for this to work. The fed cant expect to tax at the same rate and then dump responsibility of on states. Right now a lot of state agencies, Shelter and DV Coalitions are dependent on grant money received from the Fed. Thats where the tax money is going...thats why the system is so badly broken. If the states were able to tax appropriately they could fund those programs appropriately without having to beg the fed for money their own citizens have already paid.

Click to expand...

Wait, the states were given block grants from the Fed to administrate welfare, giving states the power to administrate the program. Block grants are the same idea Ryan has put forth for Social Security. So then it's the Fed's fault that the states are exploiting a loophole, thus requiring vast and increasing funds from the Fed to sustain those people dumped on the Fed, thus impairing their ability to tax appropriately?

I'm just trying to understand your argument. I see that there is a demand to give states these programs, but then it's the fault of the Fed when states weasel out. Putting more people onto the Federal disability rolls is self-defeating to your last sentence.

Gina said:

Wait, the states were given block grants from the Fed to administrate welfare, giving states the power to administrate the program. Block grants are the same idea Ryan has put forth for Social Security. So then it's the Fed's fault that the states are exploiting a loophole, thus requiring vast and increasing funds from the Fed to sustain those people dumped on the Fed, thus impairing their ability to tax appropriately?

I'm just trying to understand your argument. I see that there is a demand to give states these programs, but then it's the fault of the Fed when states weasel out. Putting more people onto the Federal disability rolls is self-defeating to your last sentence.

Click to expand...

The argument is very direct. Current system has the fed seizing money from taxpayers, passing it around to whichever bureaucracy they want to and need to, and then...provided that the states play nice and follow their rules, GRACIOUSLY send block grants back to the states. As a system...thats just plain goofy. Would you run a business that way? Of COURSE not...you would ask the obvious and honest question...why am I sending money to the fed in the first place?

Now...the answer. Because the fed CREATED that system and we LET them. The problem with that system is obvious...no direct responsibility, no responsible oversight, no constrictions on spending, and an infinite money pool by tossing any excesses or overages onto future generations in the name of deficits and debts. The ONLY reason for people to reject state responsibility for their own social programs is a desire to remain fiscally irresponsible. Large problems in our state? No problem...let the fed handle it. Fed cant handle it? No problem, let them run a deficit, borrow against our grandkids future...out of sight, out of mind. Its just wrong on every level.

pbrauer said:

True
False

See video at the link

McConnell Video Touts GOP: 'We Are The Party Of Compassion' | TPM LiveWire

Click to expand...

I suppose it all depends on ones definition of compassion. All my life i always believed in giving a hand up, not a hand out. It was just the way I was brought up. I am not sure either party is a party of compassion.

VanceMack said:

The argument is very direct. Current system has the fed seizing money from taxpayers, passing it around to whichever bureaucracy they want to and need to, and then...provided that the states play nice and follow their rules, GRACIOUSLY send block grants back to the states. As a system...thats just plain goofy. Would you run a business that way? Of COURSE not...you would ask the obvious and honest question...why am I sending money to the fed in the first place?

Now...the answer. Because the fed CREATED that system and we LET them. The problem with that system is obvious...no direct responsibility, no responsible oversight, no constrictions on spending, and an infinite money pool by tossing any excesses or overages onto future generations in the name of deficits and debts. The ONLY reason for people to reject state responsibility for their own social programs is a desire to remain fiscally irresponsible. Large problems in our state? No problem...let the fed handle it. Fed cant handle it? No problem, let them run a deficit, borrow against our grandkids future...out of sight, out of mind. Its just wrong on every level.

Click to expand...

The system was created to ensure those needing assistance got help, because they were not already. When it got out of hand, the money was given to states, as per the request of political parties and states. The state has the responsibility for oversight and to reduce the number of people on welfare. It's in the law. Only they didn't do that. It's for another thread, but I'll say it again. This is the Ryan plan for Medicare (I erroneously wrote Social Security earlier). I see that as a problem.

That is not the only and most serious reason to reject states responsibility for social programs. The first is the ability of states to just ignore people who are not a priority to the state. They include the most vulnerable amongst us. The physically and learning disabled and the poor who have mental health problems. Getting help for either, even if the funds already guaranteed, is nearly impossible. Giving the state sole responsibility would be a travesty.

I don't see how it's the Fed's fault for the states doing what they are doing.

Gina said:

The system was created to ensure those needing assistance got help, because they were not already. When it got out of hand, the money was given to states, as per the request of political parties and states. The state has the responsibility for oversight and to reduce the number of people on welfare. It's in the law. Only they didn't do that. It's for another thread, but I'll say it again. This is the Ryan plan for Medicare (I erroneously wrote Social Security earlier). I see that as a problem.

That is not the only and most serious reason to reject states responsibility for social programs. The first is the ability of states to just ignore people who are not a priority to the state. They include the most vulnerable amongst us. The physically and learning disabled and the poor who have mental health problems. Getting help for either, even if the funds already guaranteed, is nearly impossible. Giving the state sole responsibility would be a travesty.

I don't see how it's the Fed's fault for the states doing what they are doing.

Click to expand...

The creation and swelling of social programs at the fed level has been going on for a loooooong long time. What is changing is that the bloat has finally caught up to the fed and now, after creating this system they are 'dumping' responsibility on the states. Which is the RIGHT thing to do...provided that you end the fed tax bloat. You cant maintain the fed tax bloat which the fed created AND tell the states, oh by the way...pick up the slack. The entire system has to be redefined. My personal belief is that it should be redefined with the fed tax burden radically reduced and the states given the responsibility to spend and tax accordingly.