Should We Have More Social Spending By The Federal Government?

[mark46]

I will stipulate that the feds should spend more on Medicaid/ACA/CHIPS, supporting health control spending by the states and local governments.
===================
Where else do you all think that the federal government should spend more on social programs?

I think that much more should be done at the state and local level.
===================
In the end, there is a limit to how much the DC crowd should direct the priorities of spending regarding the needs of the states that have different priorities.

 

[Yttrium]

In my mind, talk of more spending by the federal government should always be accompanied by how to pay for it. I mean, I certainly wouldn't mind more medicaid spending, and infrastructure could always use more attention. Let's repeal the Trump and GW Bush tax cuts while we're at it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Why not just print infinite money at this point?

 

[.Mikha'el.]

No. In case you haven't noticed, your country is running trillion-dollar annual deficits as it is.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Why not just print infinite money at this point?

Lets tax everyone 50% and then give back 20% of the money in social programs and the other 30% will go to the pockets of politicians to get themselves reelected and pay for more houses and boats and jet planes while they create tax loopholes so they only pay 20% of the 30% they scheme out of it all. After all the covid relief bill gave everyone $1400 and gave pork to others that if we got it we would have had over $5000 each.

 

[Fantine]

I will stipulate that the feds should spend more on Medicaid/ACA/CHIPS, supporting health control spending by the states and local governments.
===================
Where else do you all think that the federal government should spend more on social programs?

I think that much more should be done at the state and local level.
===================

Easy for you to say. Some states make Simon Legree look like Mother Teresa.

There are some bad bad people in government. In my state when citizens passed a referendum with a 2-1 margin to raise the minimum wage they tried to eliminate almost every category of worker from that protection--and then they put up a referendum to make future rvirtually impossible.

For starters.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Easy for you to say. Some states make Simon Legree look like Mother Teresa.

There are some bad bad people in government. In my state when citizens passed a referendum with a 2-1 margin to raise the minimum wage they tried to eliminate almost every category of worker from that protection--and then they put up a referendum to make future rvirtually impossible.

For starters.

As long as there is a homeless person or someone without medical care, the state should spare nothing in the budget to fund them and give them the quality of life every human being inherently deserves.

There should be no limit on government spending as long as there is inequity.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Why not just print infinite money at this point?

You mean we aren't already doing that?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You mean we aren't already doing that?

Given that every government in the USA spends more than the previous one I think so, but it's not enough. I think there needs to a program to fund trans surgery and Biden desperately needs to fund every woman's abortion in the USA.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

We need to repeal the Trump tax breaks

 

[mark46]

Easy for you to say. Some states make Simon Legree look like Mother Teresa.

There are some bad bad people in government. In my state when citizens passed a referendum with a 2-1 margin to raise the minimum wage they tried to eliminate almost every category of worker from that protection--and then they put up a referendum to make future rvirtually impossible.

For starters.

I get it. Do you really want to abolish state government, and give all the power to the feds? Wages should be a federal responsibility. How much else? Should a state like CA have an powers over running their won state, a state larger in almost every sense than almost all the economies and countries of the world? Would it be OK for the feds to make the decisions if the Republicans controlled the federal government, or would we then want more power in the state governments in the rich states.

Let's say the Dems had a firmer majority in Congress. Should they then be able to essentially abolish state control over decision-making?

Where does it end? Perhaps the US should give up its sovereignty to the UN in most matters?
================
Yes, it is frustrating, but their does need to be division of responsibility between the various levels of government. The US is much too large to make all the important decisions at a federal level.
================
BOTTOM LINE
We make a mockery out of federalism and democracy when the federal government decides on the wages of grocery stores in rural Idaho, or decide what will be taught in their schools, or decided that all their junior highs should have a swimming pool (or no federal money). [Forgive the 1960's reference].

There is much that the federal government should do. We must decide on priorities. "As much as possible as long as we are in power" is NOT an acceptable decision.

 

[Fantine]

The federal government can affect states through things like regulation. They can establish baselines.

Some states need this more than others. In a state like mine, where 90% of the legislation passed will go directly to the Supreme Court and most likely be overturned, it is badly needed.

There are a number of states where the lunatics are running the asylum

 

[Landon Caeli]

Didn't they make cryptocurrency out of thin air? Anymore, I think money is all smoke and mirrors that can be manipulated.

 

[mark46]

The federal government can affect states through things like regulation. They can establish baselines.

Some states need this more than others. In a state like mine, where 90% of the legislation passed will go directly to the Supreme Court and most likely be overturned, it is badly needed.

There are a number of states where the lunatics are running the asylum

The people of a state elect legislators that enact poor laws.

When they are illegal, the courts throw them out.

The solution to this "situation" is for the federal government to take control???????

I submit that the solution is for the people to work harder to elect better legislators.

 

[Fantine]

The people of a state elect legislators that enact poor laws.

When they are illegal, the courts throw them out.
lThe solution to this "situation" is for the federal government to take control???????

I submit that the solution is for the people to work harder to elect better legislators.

I can't accept responsibility for the educational deficiencies that occurred years before I moved here (due to my husband's job, not by choice.) They just see the "R" in front of these candidates' names and have a Pavlovian response. At least half the time no one even runs against them, maybe a libertarian.

The governor vetoes the bills, but the Constitution allows them to pass them with 51% of the vote. He lectures them about why the law is. unconstitutional, but they really don't care.

Right now we have a petition drive going to undo three of the most egregious laws passed. If we can get signatures accounting for 6% of the November, 2020 vote we have a chance to get them overturned (because the voters thankfully did not pass the legislature's referendum bill to make it extremely difficult to put referendums on the ballot.)

The first one is stand your ground, The governor told them that other laws already covered most of these situations, but the legislators didn't care. The That got weakened a bit, but the truth of the matter is if one person is dead and the person who is alive says he was standing his ground, there's no one to advocate for the dead man.

The second is a variety of voter suppression laws.

The third is about medical treatments for transgender youth. Not sure if they will get the 6% on that one, but the governor told the legislators it would be unconstitutional.

Now we hear that to insure "transparency" they hired a "reapportionment" consultant to realign districts. It would be wonderful if the "transparent" person was an "honest" and "fair" person, and possibly he is, but what good does it do for 40% of the population to be stabbed in the back openly instead of surreptitiously?

I cannot see this consultant being honest--not because of the governor, who is one of the better ones i his party, but the Secretary of State.

As I said, there should be boundaries and guidelines.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The federal government can affect states through things like regulation. They can establish baselines.

Some states need this more than others. In a state like mine, where 90% of the legislation passed will go directly to the Supreme Court and most likely be overturned, it is badly needed.

There are a number of states where the lunatics are running the asylum

You live in CA?

 

[Fantine]

No, the South.

 

[CatsRule2020]

All of the Republicans are against spending on Social programs and now we are finding that Corporate donors are getting to a number of Democrats so that they may vote against helping people.

 

[civilwarbuff]

No, the South.

Then maybe you can support your statement.....

In a state like mine, where 90% of the legislation passed will go directly to the Supreme Court and most likely be overturned, it is badly needed.

.......with evidence?

 

[civilwarbuff]

All of the Republicans are against spending on Social programs and now we are finding that Corporate donors are getting to a number of Democrats so that they may vote against helping people.

A citation for that?