It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama taps spending watchdog, eyes Social Security

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The American socialists that helped elect Obama, I guess because they thought he shared their ideals, will surely be gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands over this news from the Associated Press.

AP Article


WASHINGTON (AP) — Pointing with concern to "red ink as far as the eye can see," President-elect Barack Obama pledged Wednesday to tackle out-of-control Social Security and Medicare spending and named a special watchdog to clamp down on other federal programs ...


So, under Obama it seems more and more likely that federal entitlement programs will shrink rather than grow as people that beleive in socialism would have hoped. And the future for another entitlement program - universal healthcare?



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Sounds good to me!


Not sure about everyone else, but these are the kinds of things I was hoping he'd do.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Universal healthcare will be on the back burner for the next 4 years IMO. Just not enough money. The most I can see is adding more children to the SCHIP program. As far as social security and medicaid spending, I don't see them reducing benefits. That would cost Obama votes in 2012. I can see them trying to reduce the amount they pay doctors and hospitals etc. for their services



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


If Obama reduces the payments to doctors and hospitals without making the doctors and hospitals reduce their fees, it will be the same thing as reducing benefits - which as you said, could cost Obama votes.

Interesting to see what happens.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
We tried to tell you he wasn't a socialist, but you wouldn't listen.


I don't see universal health care is an "entitlement program", other than the "entitlement" one has as a member of a supposedly advanced society that supports its people's inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Obama is going through ALL the budgets and programs (line by line, remember?), revamping the whole mess. Getting rid of out-of-control spending on ineffective programs to get funding for the programs he campaigned on (like health care).

It's what he said he would do.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Need more proof that he can't win?

If he implements a policy they don't like, "I told you, he's a socialist dictator who is going to ruin this country!"

If he implements something they are happy with, "Wow, Obama isn't being a socialist. He's not doing what you voted for!"

He hasn't taken office yet, but with news like this, I am liking what I am seeing. So far, before taking office, he has begun looking at budget cuts and he instigated cleaning up Illinois politics.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


Obama is going through ALL the budgets and programs (line by line, remember?), revamping the whole mess. Getting rid of out-of-control spending on ineffective programs to get funding for the programs he campaigned on (like health care).

It's what he said he would do.


i think his main campaign theme/promise was 'Hope-Change'...
not something concrete & tangible as you suggest.


Obama is 'cleaning up the whole mess' with a staff of former Clinton staff?
and the few Republican war-monger holdovers like Gates??

i've got my 20-20 glasses on,
the rest of youse will need the next 10 months to see the real Obama i guess.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by St Udio]



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Social programs are not socialism.

Socialism is the workers control/ownership of the means of production.

The opposite of, and the opposition to, capitalism which is private ownership of the means of production.

This has nothing to do with social programs (or government).

In fact in a 100% efficient (obviously an impossibility, so just for argument) socialist system social programs would not be necessary at all. But even in a 100% efficient capitalist system social programs would still be necessary, unless you want people dieing on the streets in their thousands.

I totally agree though that the spending on social programs is out of control, not because of the need for social programs, but for the corruption, bad management, of both the social programs themselves and the corrupt capitalist system that creates the need for those programs to begin with.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
i think his main campaign theme/promise was 'Hope-Change'...
not something concrete & tangible as you suggest.


Only a zombie would go around chanting "Hope-Change" as their only reason for voting for Obama. I actually read everything I could get my eyes on and he DID campaign on a LOT of concrete and tangible actions. This being one.

Obama Vows Line-by-line Budget Review



Obama and Biden review the federal budget line by line and eliminate programs that don’t work or are unnecessary.
...
End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama and Biden will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama and Biden have called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama and Biden will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.


IT'S WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO..



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Well, I think they are mixing up a campaign slogan for political ideology and an actual plan. But anyway, let's hope Obama's campaign slogan holds true a little more than Bush's "No Nation Building". Otherwise, we're all screwed!



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
It's just more big government and more money i'm going to have to pay to the government.

I have to spend enough money in taxes and insurance each year, i really don't feel like being FORCED to pay into yet another government program that will waste my money. If we weren't taxed to death maybe people would have an easier time paying hospital bills.

I'm sick of taxes...i'm sick of big government.

We dont need a gigantic federal program for everything. The country is already 53 trillion in debt and rising.

The social security tax that comes out of my check...i'll never get that back. Seriously they need to fix this LONG before they try to put together another gigantic program like universal health care.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
The American socialists that helped elect Obama, I guess because they thought he shared their ideals, will surely be gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands over this news from the Associated Press.

AP Article


WASHINGTON (AP) — Pointing with concern to "red ink as far as the eye can see," President-elect Barack Obama pledged Wednesday to tackle out-of-control Social Security and Medicare spending and named a special watchdog to clamp down on other federal programs ...


So, under Obama it seems more and more likely that federal entitlement programs will shrink rather than grow as people that beleive in socialism would have hoped. And the future for another entitlement program - universal healthcare?


Social Security a federal entitlement program? Damn straight it is! I paid my whole working life in order to get it back upon retirement. I AM entitled to it just as anyone else who worked for it is. The part I hate is that I was REQUIRED to contribute to this. The government didn't trust me to handle my own retirement well enough so they taxed my earnings to save for me except now that I'm nearing retirement, they're saying .. OOPS.. so sorry we didn't plan well enough. GRRRRRR. I sure hope what he's talking about is bureaucracy reduction NOT benefit reduction. I paid for my benefits!



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Doesn't matter what country you're from, what religion or colour you are, as soon as those with the money, politicians, bankers, etc, mess up the economy they always turn on the most needy in society namely pensioners, the sick and the disabled and those who have been made redundant by those who messed up in the first place. Its just not fair! I still eagerly await one of those millionaire bankers or the politicians who backed them, being taken to court and asked some questions about just how they managed to bring the worlds economy to its knees. Those with the money walk away scot-free while those brought to the brink of bankruptcy and who have lost their homes because of the crisis find themselves in the governments cross hairs.
Just goes to prove that no matter what party they represent- you can't trust a politician. . .



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We tried to tell you he wasn't a socialist, but you wouldn't listen.


No, I said socialists thought he was one of their own and voted for him for that reason. How many other special interest groups are now going to end up being sorely disappointed with their choice for president?


I don't see universal health care is an "entitlement program", other than the "entitlement" one has as a member of a supposedly advanced society that supports its people's inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


A socialist wouldn't see universal health care as an entitlement program, while a practical realist would. I also believe that many people are mixing up the ideal of universal health care with how it would be implemented in reality. Just like the difference between pure communism and what we've seen governments actually do.

Can anyone show me a federal agency (bureaucracy) that has ever been set up and run efficiently and fairly?

No, I didn't think so. So it would be with universal health care.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


If by socialist you mean most of the rest of the industrialized world.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Need we remind you that we saw several posts from people saying "I think socialism would be good for this country" during the campaigns. And I heard the same from lots of college kids calling into talk radio. Obviously those same college kids think so because they have nothing and would like for those who do have money (because we work hard for it) to share with them rather than earn their living like the rest of us.

I'm sure there are quite a few pro-socialists who voted for Obama hoping for free handouts after takes office.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
I'm sure there are quite a few pro-socialists who voted for Obama hoping for free handouts after takes office.


Right. Free hand outs. Well, that, or health care so that they can live like people who have decent lives.

But hey, it's all about perspective.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by centurion1211
 


If by socialist you mean most of the rest of the industrialized world.


Some are, some aren't.

The ones that are can't usually claim that it is working all that well for them.

[edit on 1/8/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


I have no clue where you are getting that from. There are multiple threads on this board that involve member testimony about how their socialized health care is, and not one of them ever said they would like to go back to the privatized method.

Here is a thread I started a while back. The response was limited, but check out what the members said:

To Those That Have Socialized Health Care


Originally posted by selfisolated
Here in Britain we have 'National Insurance'.

Social security, if you prefer.

Whereby anybody earning over a certain amount of money has a small amount taken seperate to their tax (it has a lower threshold than tax) to be contributed.
This pays for free healthcare for everyone (except certain Dental treatments and optical treatments), as well as being the pot for unemployment benefits, state pensions for anyone who needs it, and sickness benefits so that those unable to work through illness and injury can still have a half decent quality of life.

Its great



Originally posted by selfisolated
National Insurance contributions aren't really that big a dent in wages, as far as I've experienced.
The queues are sometimes long, and the doctors can be annoying, but from what I've heard private healthcare is only better in that the waiting lists are shorter and you can see the doctor for more time.

But its that expensive it seems far better to mere mortals who live week by week to stick with the NHS.
They've sorted me out every time theres been something wrong with me.



Originally posted by redled
Bit of a con, NI is used for everything now, but was the bedrock of the NHS. I think you Americans have to understand that instead of demanding our treatment at the exact moment we want, we British invented the queue, and are happy to queue fairly in them. Hence our NHS is not appalling, just appallingly slow, but you've got to wait your turn.

Smiley faces at the US.......



Originally posted by yeti101
I'm from the UK and think the NHS is great. Ive been in hospital 4 times with broken bones i was seen straight away, x -rayed and plastered within an hour



Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Actually i personally use the benefits of this system extremely rare, but i will never agree to give it up. Even though i pay for it using it or not. Cost is reasonable and it gives you great deal of security for old age/ accidents. It has its minuses too, but pluses out-weight it.



Originally posted by yeti101
well i think its a real shame for a country that produces so much wealth theres no free health care for its people. Im from the UK but i am entitled to free health care anywhere in the EU! and i actually used it in holland when i was in amsterdam ( long story it was a Sunday and no chemists open ended up at a hospital). Amazing! in a foreign country and getting free health care like that.

I think socially america is falling behind the curve. Maternity programs, college fees, affordable health care accepted indicators of how socially advanced a nation is. All worse in the states than they are in europe.


I have to disagree with you. I think their system works just fine. It may be a bit slow, but you can pay extra cash for extra benefits, so I am sure the wealthy wouldn't be hindered too terribly. Plus, those long lines are because everyone is getting themselves checked out, not just those that can afford it.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

as people that beleive in socialism would have hoped

Come again? A lot of the socialist oriented people I associate with are not at all disappointed with this development or Obama’s current goals. You misunderstand what their ideal achievements would be, completely missing what they’ve actually been rooting for, but that’s understandable since you seem to misunderstand what they essential are and the social reforms they seek.




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join