A budget balanced solely on the backs of the poor, weak and struggling

ap274208302847_wide-2c2cea6ecebcba4c0306a37c4c71be0f706eaf24-s1100-c15

Like its predecessors, the federal budget proposed by House Budget Committee chairman Tom Price of Georgia promises to balance the budget within a decade. While that claim is a laughable piece of fiction, dependent on bad arithmetic and totally implausible assumptions, the document itself is extremely valuable for the insight it offers into the mindset of its authors.

As another of those authors, U.S. Rep. Rob Woodall of Georgia, told the New York Times, “A budget is a moral document; it talks about where your values are.”

So what does it tell you about morals and values when the proposed budget is “balanced” solely on the backs of the most vulnerable, the struggling, those too young and too old to fend for themselves, those needing access to education?It repeals ObamaCare, of course, but it also slashes more than $900 billion from Medicaid, the system that today provides health-care coverage for millions of poor Americans, including children, and also covers some 60 percent of grandparents and great-grandparents in long-term nursing care. Overall, the Obama administration estimates that some 37 million Americans would be stripped of health insurance.It cuts Pell grants for those going to college. It cuts Medicare and turns it into a voucher program in which senior citizens will be forced to buy private insurance. It slashes food stamps and housing programs. At a time when Republicans are professing concern for the middle class and working people, this is how that rhetoric is transformed into actual policy.And at a time when corporate profits at all-time highs, the stock market is at all-time highs, and income inequity at all-time highs, what does it tell about morals and values when those prospering the most from this country’s productivity and hard work are asked to make absolutely zero sacrifice on its behalf?In fact, quite the contrary. The animating theory behind “tax reform” in the House budget is that those already prospering the most need and deserve additional rewards, must be enriched still further, while additional tax burdens are placed on those lower on the economic scale.

Under Price’s proposal, the top individual tax rate would be slashed from 35 percent to 25 percent. So would the top corporate rate. In addition, the proposal assumes that this “tax reform” is revenue neutral. So if total revenue stays at current levels, but corporations and high earners are paying less, who will pay more? You will.

But hey, don’t take my word for it. In a Q&A titled “Setting the Record Straight” produced by the House Budget Committee, Republicans take the issue head on. Well, not really. Here’s a screengrab of their page:

taxrefIn short, yes, it does cut taxes on the rich, and here’s why. The only token attempt at rebuttal comes in the mention of deductions, carve-outs and loopholes. However, every tax study of the proposal has concluded that eliminating deductions, carve-outs and loopholes doesn’t come close to offsetting the revenue lost by slashing top tax rates; in fact, the elimination of such deductions end up pushing more of the tax burden onto middle-class taxpayers.

This is the Republican economic plan. As they themselves acknowledge and even brag about, this is the product of GOP values and morals being translated into government policy. When you believe that those who are struggling just aren’t struggling enough, while those who are prospering just aren’t prospering enough, this is what you get.

 

Reader Comments 0

320 comments
GB101
GB101

What does it mean to slash more than 900 million from Medicaid?  The total federal expenditure for Medicaid is only half of that per year.

honested
honested

It is both sick and hilarious that (mis)Representative tom rice is tasked with developing a budget, even if it is a fantasy.

notagain
notagain

Once rejected, rate increase for nursing homes back in Georgia budget.Old folks need pay more.Is Ralstons son still lobbying for these nursing homes?

Wascatlady
Wascatlady

I really wish some of these folks would choke when they share their "great ideas."

stogiefogey
stogiefogey

A balanced budget is a noble goal for sure. Problem is, whether they mean to or not whenever the Republicans cut expenditures to reach that goal they're actually just building a surplus to finance their next (useless) war.

notagain
notagain

U.S. Republican budget cuts social spending, boosts military.What else is new?

juliainatlanta
juliainatlanta

Jesus said to go out and exploit the poor, the weak, the vulnerable.  it's the Christian thing to do.

GB101
GB101

@juliainatlanta The US government transfers hundreds of billions of dollars every year from taxpayers to the poor, weak, and vulnerable.  Please tell me how much Jesus wants us to take from some to give to others. Is it spelled out in the Gospels?   

Corey
Corey

@TomMiddleton 5ptsFeatured

Sadly, too many of "us" are of Edurkr's mindset. The same mindset of the gullible southerns who were suckered into fighting the rich man's war and was convinced that there was somehing in it for them.


Kamchak
Kamchak

Deficit?

Did someone post "deficit"?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/245esggv.asp

Which brings us to the economic level. The deficits that Bush ran up in the years in which the country was teetering on the verge of a serious recession had the beneficial effect of righting the economy. In that sense, deficits not only didn't matter, but were a force for economic good. 

Translation: IOKIYAR

GreenMonk
GreenMonk

Republicans have morals? Oh, that's funny!  Don't tell me: they're Christian too!

EdUktr
EdUktr

Jay and his pin-up, Nancy Pelosi, would much rather finance their deficit spending by borrowing even more from our children's future.

Vietnam Vet
Vietnam Vet

@EdUktr And of course, the Republicans will start wars that they can't finish and cut taxes to fight those wars and then try to convince us that the nation, we are "defending", will pay for  those wars. Does this sound familiar because it happened 10 years ago. Also, they will never budget for the wars and the necessity of caring for the servicemen and women who will be killed or maimed by the wars. Instead, they will grandstand by saying it's all the fault of the VA, even though they are quick  to cut the budget of the VA. All of these things add to the budget deficit that we are experiencing now.

TomMiddleton
TomMiddleton

Mary Elizabeth

In a democracy, if we stand idly by and let them do this to us, then it's our fault, right? Right, it's our fault, for we not only have the philosophical means to fight back but the numbers as well, meaning there are many more of us than there are of them, begging the question: What are we waiting for?

And when we finally get moving, will we ask ourselves, what took us so long, fear of losing our pitiful lives? And then we will answer, yes, but that's the name of the game, becoming more than we are, what we should have known all along.

And when we finally succeed with the havenots, will we be in the perfect world? Newsflash: We live in the perfect world now, for we didn't get this way by living how we should, meaning if we want better then we have to become better by countering wrong with what is right.

And since government is a reflection of who we are, should we wait for it to finally act? If we do, we will be blindsided again and again by those whose money controls what it does, meaning wait no more. We can only win with the force of our lives, Mary Elizabeth: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God.”

The Sermon on the Mount (from Matthew 5)

1. And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: 2. And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

3. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

10.Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11.Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@TomMiddleton


No need to lecture me, Tom.  I liked your classical guitar selection on Sunday much more than your words, above, today. 


TomMiddleton
TomMiddleton

@MaryElizabethSings @TomMiddleton 

Somebody needs to keep telling you what you've thus far refused to acknowledge: God always comes first. But, hey, what are friends for, which, by the way, I'll never stop being as long as I'm me and you're you; even teachers can learn. :-)

BTW, the song was for Debbie, since she's the only one I know who plays classical some Sunday mornings. I like her, don't you? And look, now I have two friends...lol.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@TomMiddleton 


What makes you think that I thought your classical guitar selection was for me?  I simply said that I enjoyed hearing it.  Sometimes words can become pedantic. That comparison was simply my way to highlight that thought to you.  Music often reaches deeper than words.


Tom, just so you will stop lecturing me, which is both condescending and sanctimonious, I well know that God comes first.

TomMiddleton
TomMiddleton

@MaryElizabethSings @TomMiddleton 

"I well know that God comes first."

===========

Before even politics, TJ and all the other "enlightened" thinkers, especially since God alone is enlightenment, the only absolute there is?

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@TomMiddleton 


Tom, you do NOT know me better than I know myself.  You are not even close.  That is just your ego talking to you and I am seeing that you must be dominant by assuming that you know more about me than I know about myself.  Is that your modus operandi?  If it is, I do not respect it.


Moreover, through the way you have related to me here, please know that we are not "friends."  You do not even know my name, my personal e-mail address, and I have never even met you.  A true friend would not have related to me as you have here.  You presume, falsely and arrogantly, to know too much about me.  Safeguard your own soul.

TomMiddleton
TomMiddleton

@MaryElizabethSings @TomMiddleton 

Why is it right when you disagree with others on this blog (and me), but wrong when we do it to you? Maybe you think you belong on a pedestal, Mary Elizabeth, but most women these days like the ground where it's real.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@TomMiddleton


You can disagree with a person's ideas without telling that person that you know more about them than they know about themselves.  The first is not offensive; the second is not only offensive but condescending.  I have written a few more words, of understanding, I hope to you on the later thread.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@TomMiddleton


Tom, your ego is talking to you again when you wrote that I wanted a relationship..  We exchanged about 4 e-mails (not through my personal e-mail) and as I recall, you said you did not know what to say but you did invite me to discuss your song with you, if I wished to continue an exchange with you.  I knew that I was really not interested in discussing your song. That just wasn't my thing.


I never again sent an e-mail to you.  It did not post to you again because I did not think that there was enough that we had in common to be long-standing friends,  nor did I think we had any special "spark" between us that that would have been needed in a relationship between a man and woman.  I had nothing against you. I think both of us are old enough to be able to size these things up quickly.


I will always appreciate how once you did tell Josef that what he was trying to do to me was wrong, but you could not keep sustaining that position with him.  It would take a very special person to be my friend and my male companion.  I am not necessarily looking for that.   I have had two kind and loving husbands and two children in my life.  If I find another special person for me, then I am aware that that would be gift from God but I do not expect it for I have already had so many gifts from God in my life.  I enjoy my own company, and I am not looking to solve the problems another person may have with his unresolved personal conflicts.  I would rather be alone and enjoy my life as well as my friends and family, knowing real love and companion that comes with real love


Best to you.  It simply was not meant to be between us.  Please stop lecturing me on what you perceive you need to tell me about myself.  Trust me, you know nothing about me that I do not already know about myself.  Back off, Tom, to continue to lecture me is futile and classless as I have understood that to mean.

TomMiddleton
TomMiddleton

@MaryElizabethSings @TomMiddleton

Mary Elizabeth

When you can admit when you're wrong about something, like you expect others to do, you may able to have lasting friendships, or a third marriage, or something besides being alone.

All I've done with you is try to have a continuing conversation, open-ended and constructive to the core, even when you've run away for seemingly no reason, like you've done time and again for over three years now.

The last time was just a few months ago when I posted something in general on Jay's blog, when suddenly there you were taking me on, and when I wouldn't back down, you ran away.

I still have it copied complete, what I said and you said as well, but what's the point of bringing it out, since what I said are things you still don't want to hear, as I learned today.

But as far as I'm concerned that original conversation cut-short was completed today, meaning be well always, and please don't challenge me again on matters you wish to know nothing about, speaking of ego!

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@TomMiddleton 



More lectures from you, Tom.  How very tedious.  I organized two family reunions last year, Tom, so I am hardly alone.  I was with two husbands already for 40 years of my life.  I am a widow.  It is vain of you to assume that I, at 72 with my history, am seeking just to have a man in my life.  Frankly, I have not met a man I could respect and admire since my husband died.  I require a gentleman with grace and manners, and high intellect.  Those things are not easily found in today's crass culture.  Just look at the quality of posts on this blog, alone, for only one example.


Goodbye, Tom.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@TomMiddleton 


We are all works in progress toward our better selves.  It is not for you to tell me, nor I to tell you, how to improve.  We are wiser and more spiritually evolved when we realize that it is better to work on our own weaknesses, instead of lecturing to a friend how she can be wiser and more spiritual.  This link may interest you.  If not, please just disregard.  That's ok, too.


(Btw, where you think we had conflict in the last month or so, I thought you were defensive and and discourteous to me.  You had mentioned that only those at the center can reach spiritual grace.  I thought that was a cliched way of perceiving.  I gave the example that Lincoln certainly did not stand in the center, that he had opposed slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation - and later with the 13th amendment to the Constitution).  I mentioned that I could not think of a U. S. President with a greater depth of soul than Lincoln, and he was not a centrist.  I would have been interested in pursuing our differing thoughts about that with you, but you perceived my remarks to you as a personal insult to you instead of about wanting to pursue differing ideas.  You were critical of my remarks simply because I did not agree with your thoughts and because I had urged you to "look deeper," and you became defensive with me, as a result. Naturally, I left that unpleasant perception/encounter.  No, it would never work between us, Tom.)


https://maryelizabethsings.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/nonviolence-in-action-an-easter-message/

TomMiddleton
TomMiddleton

@MaryElizabethSings @TomMiddleton 

Now it's your ego flailing away, Mary Elizabeth, for I never suggested we meet. All I ever wanted was friendship and talking about spiritual interests; how clever of you to turn that around.

You have rewritten our history (and, yes, I have the proof), but if you want to blame me, go ahead. I just hope the next time I meet someone who says they're on a “spiritual journey,” they mean one toward God, not one all about them.

And goodbye to you, Mary Elizabeth; I really am wishing you well. :-)

 

TomMiddleton
TomMiddleton

@MaryElizabethSings @TomMiddleton 

Where do you think God is, Mary Elizabeth, if not the center of our existence? Cliche? Oh my goodness, no wonder you just don't know. (And how nice of you to remember a conversation you said a couple of posts ago didn't happen.)

And how do you think our “enlightened” ones became enlightened to a degree. Prayer toward God at our center? Certainly, meaning Lincoln too was a centrist. But once you've got your mind made up, you don't hear anything but what you said, and then you get mad and run away.

It's probably a good thing we're done talking about this, because I see it clear as the sun, and all I'm going to do is make you madder and madder, meaning migraines you're going to be blaming on me.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@TomMiddleton 


You are the person who does not know yourself, Tom.  Your post here is nothing but insults to me.  I never said or thought you suggested we meet.  But, I wanted to make it clear when you had said previously that you had "walked away," that it was not from a real relationship with me.  If you had been interested in talking about spiritual interests with me, you would have done so in private e-mail.  You did not.  You only wanted to have your friends here assume something was between us, which was not.


I am not into "which one of us is into blame."  And, all of us have egos, men and women, you and I.  


Anyone reading this can understand how far apart in our thinking we are.  Now, do you understand why I am not interested in having just any friend or any man spending time in my life?. Today's exchange with you has been not joyous, but draining.  And, it is so fitting that you earlier words of criticism of me today would have pulled in a nasty unsolicited remark from Josef to you about me, also.  Altogether, a sad day for me. No, I do not believe you nor Josef has the wisdom nor the strength to acknowledge your condescending and mean-spirited words to me.  You both may even be chauvinists, unaware.


It is good to be 72.  I am blessed in that.  I can see clearly now without a need for accepting proclaimed surface, and false realities from others.


Happy journey.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@TomMiddleton 


Tom you are not a spiritual guru.  Wake up.  And, I don't have a migraine. I am just bored and tired of this tedious dialogue.  No wonder we only lasted for 4 e-mails. ;-)  I'm really quite surprised we lasted that long!  And, I'll bet you are, too!


Give it a rest and I will too!  ;-)

TomMiddleton
TomMiddleton

@MaryElizabethSings @TomMiddleton 

There's a reason why I never wanted to meet you, Mary Elizabeth: We never could agree on the basics. And since the real spiritual life is what my life is all about, you only would have been in the way. I'm sorry.

TomMiddleton
TomMiddleton

@MaryElizabethSings @TomMiddleton 

Stop it with the passive-aggressive melodrama, Mary Elizabeth, for there are no victims here. Just acknowledge your mistake, as I've had to do as well, and move on to a life more to your liking. Good luck!!!

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@TomMiddleton 


"passive-aggressive"


"melodrama"


"victims"


"your mistake"


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


If you are so spiritual, Tom, why do the above words keep showing up in your posts - which are indicative of your thought processes?  Those words don't sound much like the language of Kahlil Girbran, or even Deepak Choprak, to me.


Sounds like you are still thinking in terms of "winners and losers" to me.  Frankly, this conversation has gone on for so long that I have forgotten what "mistake" I was supposed to have made in your eyes.  And, don't bother telling me again what it was.  


Btw, Tom, just to refresh your memory, I never suggested that you "meet" me.  Hell, man, I wouldn't even let you know my name, where I live, and what my e-mail address is.  I take a loooong time to trust someone.  You have shot any trust I might have developed for you.  What chilvary!?  And, a Southern gentleman? to boot!  


Farewell Tom, in the scheme of all things, this little spat is just plain silly on both of our parts.  Laugh about it as I am doing now.  But, you have not been able to tame me, even with your piousness.  I'm sure God understands.  He knows me very, very well!


TomMiddleton
TomMiddleton

@MaryElizabethSings @TomMiddleton 

How many more times are you going to say goodbye, Mary Elizabeth, meaning it's big-girl time. If you want to go on, then go. God knows I'm not the one holding you back!

BTW, I kept all our private emails, and, yes, we discussed spiritual matters. And overall your lack of honesty in our conversations is troubling to say the least.

I just hope whoever else may be reading this crap realizes you're not always telling the truth. And I hope you remember going forward that I tried hard to get along with you, even as just a friend.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@TomMiddleton


Hi again.  Tom, I didn't hoard your emails to prove anything and I haven't looked at them in over a year.  You may have mentioned some spiritual things.  I'm not denying that.  In my mind I was honest in my conversations with you.


I tell the truth to the best of my ability to do so.  But, I would not dare to even think to store old e-mails so that I could "prove" something so inane in their words.


I do think you have tried hard to get along with me, even as just a friend.


Tom, if true be told, I have very, very high standards for what characteristics I value in a friend.  We are not enemies, but we are not "friends" either.  I have had 5 deep friends of both sexes in my life (not even counting my brother and sister who are my friends) and those friendships have lasted almost 50 years each. The word "friends" is tossed around much too lightly in this age,  Adams and Jefferson were friends.  The last thing Adams said before dying was, "Jefferson lives."  However, Thomas Jefferson had died already a couple of hours before Adams.  Adams just did not know it.  They both died on July 4, 1824 or 1826.  They had had fallings out, but they came together again.  That was a true friendship - a meeing of minds and souls who shared and fought for the same ideas, ideals, and consciousness on this Earth for America.

TomMiddleton
TomMiddleton

@TomMiddleton 

You're sounding more and more like a blog troll, Mary Elizabeth, blanket statements without explanation. Just so you know, you're making less sense now than anytime in the past..

TomMiddleton
TomMiddleton

@MaryElizabethSings @TomMiddleton 

Tame you, Mary Elizabeth? You've just given yourself away. And now I know why a friendship with you has more closely resembled a battle at times, than two friends walking together toward the common goal of God where they're united.

You've accused me of “lecturing” you this time, over and over again, but what else could I do with someone who claims to know more than she does and proves it almost every single post.

My intentions with you have been perfect, meaning you couldn't step up and make it your own. And Mary Elizabeth, that's on you, not me, since “taming you” has nothing to with anything I've said.

And that means ego, Mary Elizabeth, but yours not mine, since all I wanted in our friendship was growing closer to God and you at the very same time.

Funny thing is I will still do that, even though you're not around, meaning someday you're going to understand what it's really all about, and then you can do it, too.

So peace, sista, and I mean that, but you have so much to learn, for you've misunderstood almost everything about my intentions, and to say it again, that's on you!

TomMiddleton
TomMiddleton

@MaryElizabethSings @TomMiddleton 

“Tom, if true be told, I have very, very high standards for what characteristics I value in a friend.”

===============

Self-worship is not a virtue, Mary Elizabeth, and having a huge ego does not make you the center of the world. And it sure is a good thing that Jesus and other spiritual giants were not so affected by such foolish, immature standards.

So what is it you offer the world, Mary Elizabeth, that makes you think so highly of yourself? Me, I'm just a bloke, no better, no less than anyone else around, meaning I can and have learned something I didn't know about life from almost every single person I've met.

They're all invaluable to me, Mary Elizabeth, and to me, this is what makes life fun, not sitting in some ivory tower, demanding everyone treat me like I'm special or however you think of yourself.

Oh right, it was “special” from one of your early posts this time around, but to me the only special folks there are in the world are ones who don't think they're special at all.

And while your head's up there in your “special” clouds, how do the rest of us look here on the ground, like ants for you to step on every time you can't get your egomaniac way about something?

I've never been one for giving in to egomania, in me or anyone else, what I love about the spiritual life, which teaches us how to let go of it for the sacred Kingdom of God.

You do remember “the Kingdom of God,” don't you, and “seeking God first,” what started this whole conversation with your coming off the rails at the mere suggestion of a life beyond you?

It's just the way it is, Mary Elizabeth, as I've told you many times before. I know it and you should, but like I've said, you still have a long way to go to understand!

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

Td: "Go sit in the Dekalb county DFCS office waiting room for a day and observe and then come back and talk to me. If you have the guts. 

Why just pick on Dekalb county?  The two  BIGGEST counties that's receiving the MOST aid in Georgia are  Chattahoochee, with an unemployment rate of 14.4 percent and Telfair, with a jobless rate of 13.3 percent. Yet, your brown colored glasses, can only see Dekalb county! Imagine that!


TD: " 20 to 25% of the population is receiving TANF, SN.AP or Medicaid and the only place you can receive the handout from is a DFCS office."

I know you know what's coming next.........please supply a link to the data in the comment you just cited.  Also, are these figures for the state of Georgia, or nationwide?  Please advise.  Thanks!

WW5
WW5

how much direct taxes do the poor, weak and struggling actually pay?

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@WW5 --  A bigger percentage than the rich. A good example is when I do taxes for free down at my local community center.

I noticed that people without qualifying children under 16 who earn an average of $25 - $45K annually, (apartment dwellers, who don't own any property), usually OWE taxes to the state of Georgia each year. 

Whereas someone who makes between $50-85K yearly, (with the same qualifiers); receive a return.


TGT88
TGT88

So, were our Founders, and the thousands of elected officials for over a century following our founding, "immoral" b/c the federal government didn't have more than half of the federal budget devoted to "programs" for the "vulnerable?" How did we ever come to lead the world in virtually every metric (military, financial, education, industrial, technological, etc., etc., etc.) without Big Government? 


When you (liberals, i.e. the Democrat Party) stop standing for the "right" to slaughter the most "vulnerable" among us (to the tune of tens-of-millions), and standing for every type of sexual perversion imaginable, then maybe we can have a discussion about "moral" budgets. 


Nothing has done more to ensnare tens-of-millions of Americans in bondage--financial and otherwise--than today's liberalism. Because of liberals: the largest single employer in the U.S. is government (10 million more than the 50 largest private employers--Walmart, McDonald's, etc.--combined); the largest educator in the U.S. is government (about 90% of k-12 students attends a government school); the largest "charity" in the U.S. is government, and so on. 


A man cannot be free unless he has economic independence. As C.S. Lewis pointedly put it, “For economic independence allows an education not controlled by Government; and in adult life it is the man who needs, and asks, nothing of Government who can criticise its acts and snap his fingers at its ideology. Read Montaigne; that's the voice of a man with his legs under his own table, eating the mutton and turnips raised on his own land. Who will talk like that when the State is everyone's schoolmaster and employer?”


http://www.trevorgrantthomas.com/2015/03/two-shades-of-dismay-perverse-bondage.html