So next elections when the Republicans again run on "lowering taxes"

[bluelang]

Will the entire internet rise up as one and say "No sir! You mean increasing the deficit!"

Will it happen? It'll happen, right? Because we're smarter now?

[vangator1]

It's hard to counter all the moochers who put the worthless one back in office, but you gotta try.

[g8orbill]

if the pubs don't nominate a conservative they will lose again

they have to run on cutting spending and getting our finances in order

[fredsanford]

if the pubs don't nominate a conservative they will lose again

they have to run on cutting spending and getting our finances in order

They always run on that. They just abandon it if elected.

[QGator2414]

They need to run on a flat tax no deductions or the fair tax.

And the vast majority of people will need to have a higher effective rate at first to pay for our greed.

Unfortunately our greed and selfishness is why that platform cannot win. I wish more people cared about what we are leaving our kids.

:smoke:

[philnotfil]

They always run on that. They just abandon it if elected.

Unfortunately this is true.

[wgbgator]

Its easy to run on cutting spending, which people like in abstract. Everyone runs on cutting unecessary spending, D & R. What people don't like is specifics on what gets cut, because it turns out people do find that spending necessary.

[CHFG8R]

Will the entire internet rise up as one and say "No sir! You mean increasing the deficit!"

Will it happen? It'll happen, right? Because we're smarter now?

They will and they'll win on it because the hubris and resulting overreaching of this administration (like the last) will leave a perfect opening for them. This administration is all about payback and nothing about addressing the current problems in this country.

We hit the biggest economic downturn since '29-41 and what's this administration's main focus? Health Care. Why? Because they'd been pining for it since the mid-90s and they finally had the votes. Who cares whether it was the issue of the day, whether it was good or whether it would even correct the problems it was intended to correct. The votes were there and it was time for payback.
Now, while mired in a hellishly slow recovery, we have an administration that is hell bent on raising taxes with no concern whatsoever about reeling in spending. Again, payback in lieu of addressing the real issues. Hated the Bush taxcuts then and now they have the votes and cache' to get them repealed whether that's good for the recovery or not. Just like the previous administration with their unneeded tax cuts, jacked up energy bill and their lame-assed reasoning (the real reason can be found here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/)for entering us into Vietnam squared.

And when Bush/Rubio get elected in 2016, we'll get payback once again. Not a day goes by lately when I'm not happy that I never had kids.

[g8orbill]

hell- I just hope there is a next election

[PSGator66]

The increase in our debt has never been increased greater than under Obama. Most Americans have exactly zero clue about his policies voted for him on principal.

[QGator2414]

Its easy to run on cutting spending, which people like in abstract. Everyone runs on cutting unecessary spending, D & R. What people don't like is specifics on what gets cut, because it turns out people do find that spending necessary.

This is the part I disagree with.

It is about "want" not necessity. One need not look farther than entitlement reform.

[wgbgator]

They will and they'll win on it because the hubris and resulting overreaching of this administration (like the last) will leave a perfect opening for them. This administration is all about payback and nothing about addressing the current problems in this country.

We hit the biggest economic downturn since '29-41 and what's this administration's main focus? Health Care. Why? Because they'd been pining for it since the mid-90s and they finally had the votes. Who cares whether it was the issue of the day, whether it was good or whether it would even correct the problems it was intended to correct. The votes were there and it was time for payback.
Now, while mired in a hellishly slow recovery, we have an administration that is hell bent on raising taxes with no concern whatsoever about reeling in spending. Again, payback in lieu of addressing the real issues. Hated the Bush taxcuts then and now they have the votes and cache' to get them repealed whether that's good for the recovery or not. Just like the previous administration with their unneeded tax cuts, jacked up energy bill and their lame-assed reasoning (the real reason can be found here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/)for entering us into Vietnam squared.

And when Bush/Rubio get elected in 2016, we'll get payback once again. Not a day goes by lately when I'm not happy that I never had kids.

Why? The focus on healthcare was precisly because its major factor in our spending and will only get bigger as a percentage of GDP and more of a drain on the budget if left alone. The diagnosis was correct, though you may not agree with the treatment (Obamacare).

[wgbgator]

This is the part I disagree with.

It is about "want" not necessity. One need not look farther than entitlement reform.

I know its hard for you to fathom, but a great many people do find things like SS and Medicare necessary components of government.

[MichiGator2002]

I know its hard for you to fathom, but a great many people do find things like SS and Medicare necessary components of government.

Yep, which is pretty much the "dead, just hasn't stopped moving yet" threshold of a nation. I lli think a lot of us fathom all too well that a great many people find those necessary (let alone legitimate) components of government.

[wgbgator]

Yep, which is pretty much the "dead, just hasn't stopped moving yet" threshold of a nation. I lli think a lot of us fathom all too well that a great many people find those necessary (let alone legitimate) components of government.

Sure, I havent see anyone run on eliminating those things. Mostly just on making them worse by fully or partially privatizing them and passing on the bulk of the risk to citizens by turning them into defined contribution plans under the rhetoric of "strengthening" those programs. Its still a tacit admission that the government has some role to play in caring for the elderly.

[QGator2414]

I know its hard for you to fathom, but a great many people do find things like SS and Medicare necessary components of government.

It is hard to fathom knowing most of the world only dreams of having utilities and clean running water.

Then again we are AMERICANS!

[fredsanford]

The increase in our debt has never been increased greater than under Obama. Most Americans have exactly zero clue about his policies voted for him on principal.

Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower per Forbes.

[QGator2414]

Sure, I havent see anyone run on eliminating those things. Mostly just on making them worse by fully or partially privatizing them and passing on the bulk of the risk to citizens by turning them into defined contribution plans under the rhetoric of "strengthening" those programs. Its still a tacit admission that the government has some role to play in caring for the elderly.

Why the elderly? Why not a "safety net" for everyone regardless of age that provides "necessities" not "wants"?

Then my only beef would be it should be run from the local level and not the federal level...

[CHFG8R]

Why? The focus on healthcare was precisly because its major factor in our spending and will only get bigger as a percentage of GDP and more of a drain on the budget if left alone. The diagnosis was correct, though you may not agree with the treatment (Obamacare).

It was hardly the priority issue of the time - unless you've been pining for payback since '94. You can spin it any way you want, but the fact remains that this policy - and just about every other policy from this administration - is more about political payback for 2000-2008 than anything else and forcing their will on their political opponents.

And I won't even wade into the morass that is Obamacare only to say that it will be a complete failure when all is said and done, that the "savings" they project will never materalize and that it will actually "cost" us more in the long run. Oh, and that the insurance companies have already figured out how to "game" it. This was never an attempt to solve the healthcare issue as much as it was a chance to gain victory over an opponent. It's motivation as shallow as your's and mine on the Saturday after Thanksgiving.

Lastly, let me ask you this. Why was no (R) healthcare idea even considered in this bill? I mean, how can you have comprehensive healthcare without some kind of tort reform? Why was selling across state lines never considered? Full tax decuctions for services performed on the needy? None of it was there. None was even considered. And you're telling me this wasn't about payback? Puhleeze.

That's okay though. Celebrate now. You and your side will be crying in 2016-24 as that administration spends 8 years trying to undo this administration's policies.

[CHFG8R]

I know its hard for you to fathom, but a great many people do find things like SS and Medicare necessary components of government.

They are valuable. But do you honestly believe that they do not need to be restructured? For their own good?

And shouldn't that restructuring be done in an earnest and honest fashion, with all ideas on the table, in an effort to truly fix the problem? Or should everything be about political gamesmanship and beating the opponent?

[QGator2414]

Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower per Forbes.

From the whitehouse website...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls

[wgbgator]

It was hardly the priority issue of the time - unless you've been pining for payback since '94. You can spin it any way you want, but the fact remains that this policy - and just about every other policy from this administration - is more about political payback for 2000-2008 than anything else and forcing their will on their political opponents.

And I won't even wade into the morass that is Obamacare only to say that it will be a complete failure when all is said and done, that the "savings" they project will never materalize and that it will actually "cost" us more in the long run. Oh, and that the insurance companies have already figured out how to "game" it. This was never an attempt to solve the healthcare issue as much as it was a chance to gain victory over an opponent. It's motivation as shallow as your's and mine on the Saturday after Thanksgiving.

Lastly, let me ask you this. Why was no (R) healthcare idea even considered in this bill? I mean, how can you have comprehensive healthcare without some kind of tort reform? Why was selling across state lines never considered? Full tax decuctions for services performed on the needy? None of it was there. None was even considered. And you're telling me this wasn't about payback? Puhleeze.

That's okay though. Celebrate now. You and your side will be crying in 2016-24 as that administration spends 8 years trying to undo this administration's policies.

If it was "revenge" for '94, its pretty strange that they latched onto a plan drawn up by conservatives back then as an alternative to the Clinton proposals, and supported by many Republicans right up until it was proposed by a Democrat at a national level. Democrats begged and pleaded for votes, but Republicans made a calculated risk to deny the Democrats a legislative victory (fine, thats politics), followed by a sour grapes constitutional challenge that failed after a conservative justice became the key vote in upholding it. It was really nothing more than that, unless part of the FU was making them vote against something they once supported. The alternative things you mentioned would have negligible impact on healthcare costs.

[philnotfil]

Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower per Forbes.

Smallest increase in government spending, different from smallest spending.

[philnotfil]

Why was no (R) healthcare idea even considered in this bill? I mean, how can you have comprehensive healthcare without some kind of tort reform? Why was selling across state lines never considered? Full tax decuctions for services performed on the needy? None of it was there. None was even considered. And you're telling me this wasn't about payback? Puhleeze.

I don't know about full tax deductions, but the other two ideas have been tried at the state level and haven't made a difference.

[CHFG8R]

If it was "revenge" for '94, its pretty strange that they latched onto a plan drawn up by conservatives back then as an alternative to the Clinton proposals, and supported by many Republicans right up until it was proposed by a Democrat at a national level. Democrats begged and pleaded for votes, but Republicans made a calculated risk to deny the Democrats a legislative victory (fine, thats politics), followed by a sour grapes constitutional challenge that failed after a conservative justice became the key vote in upholding it. It was really nothing more than that. The alternative things you mentioned would have negligible impact on healthcare costs.

Nevertheless, who exactly was clammoring for THIS in 2008-09? I think most were clammoring for jobs. Why couldn't this have waited? Oh yeah, because the (R) were going to get the house back in 2010. You still have not addressed why THIS was priority #1 for the administration when it was far down the list for most Americans?

That old "we know what better for you than you do" kind of thinking perhaps? Or, more likely (and especially in the final hours) it was about beating the other side.

At the very least, it was a totally ham-handed approach to the issue.

[CHFG8R]

I don't know about full tax deductions, but the other two ideas have been tried at the state level and haven't made a difference.

How can selling across state lines (on a nationwide basis) be tried at the state level?

Seriously. It's an honest question.

[wgbgator]

Nevertheless, who exactly was clammoring for THIS in 2008-09? I think most were clammoring for jobs. Why couldn't this have waited? Oh yeah, because the (R) were going to get the house back in 2010. You still have not addressed why THIS was priority #1 for the administration when it was far down the list for most Americans?

That old "we know what better for you than you do" kind of thinking perhaps? Or, more likely (and especially in the final hours) it was about beating the other side.

At the very least, it was a totally ham-handed approach to the issue.

Whatever you believe about the process, the point remains. Healthcare was a serious drain on spending, and part of "fixing" the economy. It was not just some pet project that had no relevance to the situation. Also, if you remember the stimulus was the first priority, not healthcare (that didnt pass until 2010 after months of debate).

[philnotfil]

How can selling across state lines (on a nationwide basis) be tried at the state level?

Seriously. It's an honest question.

Several states have allowed insurers from other states to sell in their state. Isn't that what it means to sell across state lines? Is "selling across state lines" code for something else?

How would selling across state lines be functionally different when every single state allows it as opposed to a handful of states? For the insurer, what difference does it make that Alabama does or does not allow them to sell insurance in that state if they are trying to sell insurance in Georgia?

[wgbgator]

How can selling across state lines (on a nationwide basis) be tried at the state level?

Seriously. It's an honest question.

The state can allow people to purchase from foreign insurers (meaning HQd in another state, and not admitted to the domestic (state) market).

[CHFG8R]

Whatever you believe about the process, the point remains. Healthcare was a serious drain on spending, and part of "fixing" the economy. It was not just some pet project that had no relevance to the situation. Also, if you remember the stimulus was the first priority, not healthcare (that didnt pass until 2010 after months of debate).

I don't buy that rationale as I sincerely believe, without a recession, it is still priority #1 for this administration. And, ultimately, it's a convoluted mess of a bill that, in the end, was more about exacting a political pound of flesh than actually dealing with the issue in an honest and earnest way.

This is the kind of issue that requires more than a year or two of political name-calling to solve. Maybe it would have been smarter to start with baby steps or, (bleep)-it, just go with a single-payer system. IMO, that would have been preferable to this.

Which begs an honest question I've pondered for a while? Would single-payer be better, even for employers? I've always preferred fixed cost to variable cost. Would it not be more effecient and affordable - even for companies - if we all just paid an extra 5% in taxes and were all covered? Companies no longer have to worry about negotiating insurance deals every 2-3 years and folks who want a higher level of coverage than the base could buy supplimental plans like those offered for Medicare?

[CHFG8R]

Several states have allowed insurers from other states to sell in their state. Isn't that what it means to sell across state lines? Is "selling across state lines" code for something else?

How would selling across state lines be functionally different when every single state allows it as opposed to a handful of states? For the insurer, what difference does it make that Alabama does or does not allow them to sell insurance in that state if they are trying to sell insurance in Georgia?

I'm not sure that's the same as creating a nationwide market. I claim little knowledge on this issue, but have heard a lot about it's supposed benefits. For instance, why is that currently not allowed?

[Gatoragman]

So what has Obamacare done to "fix" the economy so far?

[wgbgator]

I don't buy that rationale as I sincerely believe, without a recession, it is still priority #1 for this administration. And, ultimately, it's a convoluted mess of a bill that, in the end, was more about exacting a political pound of flesh than actually dealing with the issue in an honest and earnest way.

This is the kind of issue that requires more than a year or two of political name-calling to solve. Maybe it would have been smarter to start with baby steps or, (bleep)-it, just go with a single-payer system. IMO, that would have been preferable to this.

Which begs an honest question I've pondered for a while? Would single-payer be better, even for employers? I've always preferred fixed cost to variable cost. Would it not be more effecient and affordable - even for companies - if we all just paid an extra 5% in taxes and were all covered? Companies no longer have to worry about negotiating insurance deals every 2-3 years and folks who want a higher level of coverage than the base could buy supplimental plans like those offered for Medicare?

Single payor would be better. Allowing hospitals to refuse treatment for the uninsured or letting private insurers more easily cancel people, limit who they cover or deny claims would probably help costs too. But politics are about what is possible, not about what is the "best" or "ideal" solution. Single payor and limiting access to insurance to only the healthy isnt politically possible, and may never be.

[philnotfil]

Single payor would be better. Allowing hospitals to refuse treatment for the uninsured or letting private insurers more easily cancel people, limit who they cover or deny claims would probably help costs too. But politics are about what is possible, not about what is the "best" or "ideal" solution. Single payor and limiting access to insurance to only the healthy isnt politically possible, and may never be.

Which is a shame, because it has been shown to provide better health care for less money. You would think that we could all agree that getting more for less is a good thing.

[CHFG8R]

Single payor would be better. Allowing hospitals to refuse treatment for the uninsured or letting private insurers more easily cancel people, limit who they cover or deny claims would probably help costs too. But politics are about what is possible, not about what is the "best" or "ideal" solution. Single payor and limiting access to insurance to only the healthy isnt politically possible, and may never be.

I in no way support this. I was just suggesting that, perhaps, a flat and fixed cost for everyone (rich, poor, businesses, self-employed, etc.) would be more cost effective. For those who want more or better, then they can spend the additional needed to get that and do so the same way they negotiate insurance today. But the base would be covered for everyone.

My guess is the insurance companies are the biggest obstacle to this, as this would cut out a large portion of their client base and revenues. Personally, I could care less about them or the HMO's/Healthcare Corps and once they signed on to Obamacare, I knew it was worthless (and that their beancounters had already figured a way to "game" the new system).

[brainstorm]

Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower per Forbes.

I'll pile on.

This wasn't Forbes but rather an Op-Ed piece by a liberal blogger:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/2/

And it was easily refuted in another Forbes Op-Ed piece:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/09/20/rick-ungar-is-wrong-obama-is-the-biggest-spender-in-world-history/

As already mentioned, the increase in the rate of growth OVER AND BEYOND the previous spending levels does not equal "smallest govt spender".

[QGator2414]

I'll pile on.

This wasn't Forbes but rather an Op-Ed piece by a liberal blogger:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/2/

And it was easily refuted in another Forbes Op-Ed piece:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/09/20/rick-ungar-is-wrong-obama-is-the-biggest-spender-in-world-history/

As already mentioned, the increase in the rate of growth OVER AND BEYOND the previous spending levels does not equal "smallest govt spender".

Facts can be so inconvenient...

[QGator2414]

Why do people want single payer for only healthcare?

What about the industry you work in?

[philnotfil]

Why do people want single payer for only healthcare?

What about the industry you work in?

Because it has been shown to provide better outcomes at a lower cost?

As a teacher, we already have single payer when it comes to schools.

[wgbgator]

I'm not sure that's the same as creating a nationwide market. I claim little knowledge on this issue, but have heard a lot about it's supposed benefits. For instance, why is that currently not allowed?

I think what people mean by "purchasing across state lines" means dipping into other risk pools. But it's counterproductive. If rates are cheaper in a healthier state, and you let a bunch of actuarily less healthy outsiders in, then the rates won't stay the same. They will rise because the risk pool has become unhealthier in aggregate. Obamacare creates a national market, but it also has a funding mechanism (that the above approach doesnt have), by making sure free-riders or people who wouldnt purchase insurance are paying into the risk pool either by buying coverage or paying a tax, offsetting the costs of the expanded pool.

[QGator2414]

Because it has been shown to provide better outcomes at a lower cost?

As a teacher, we already have single payer when it comes to schools.

Says who? I know that our federal government has shown it can burden future generations by getting involved in healthcare.

And what federal department do I send the bill to if I send my kids to private school? The federal government has proven it can burden future generations with its involvment here as well...

[wgbgator]

Future generations could always decide something different. That's kind of what democracy means. I'm not sure why policy should be decided by hypothetical people who don't yet exist, and may not even agree with you.

[QGator2414]

I think what people mean by "purchasing across state lines" means dipping into other risk pools. But it's counterproductive. If rates are cheaper in a healthier state, and you let a bunch of actuarily less healthy outsiders in, then the rates won't stay the same. They will rise because the risk pool has become unhealthier in aggregate. Obamacare creates a national market, but it also has a funding mechanism (that the above approach doesnt have), by making sure free-riders or people who wouldnt purchase insurance are paying into the risk pool either by buying coverage or paying a tax, offsetting the costs of the expanded pool.

Other states may be healthier but the larger savings can be found in the mandated coverages...

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/MandatesintheStates2011ExecSumm.pdf

[QGator2414]

Future generations could always decide something different. That's kind of what democracy means. I'm not sure why policy should be decided by hypothetical people who don't yet exist, and may not even agree with you.

Future generations cannot decide to just say I do not want this burden that you are dumping on me. $16 trillion and counting. So instead of providing them an uphill battle to pay for our greed how about we try to live within our means and let them do the same then deciding how they want the repbulic to spend money...

[QGator2414]

But we are AMERICANS so who cares if we leave our kids a burden to address with all their other issues...

[Dreamliner]

If you can't cut Big Bird (PBS), who can fly on his own, no help from taxpayers, what the hell can you cut ?

[Dreamliner]

Is there a single pub in Congress now who's an across-the-board, no exceptions cutter ? Maybe Justin Amash ?

[wgbgator]

Future generations cannot decide to just say I do not want this burden that you are dumping on me. $16 trillion and counting. So instead of providing them an uphill battle to pay for our greed how about we try to live within our means and let them do the same then deciding how they want the repbulic to spend money...

Sure they can. It has happened regularly throughout history.

[wgbgator]

But we are AMERICANS so who cares if we leave our kids a burden to address with all their other issues...

Americans, including you, arent above using hypothetical future generations or children as an appeal to achieve policy ends important to them in the present.

[Matthanuf06]

Is there a single pub in Congress now who's an across-the-board, no exceptions cutter ? Maybe Justin Amash ?

A politician wouldn't be able to get elected if he didn't get $$$ sent his way. Even if he had the best intentions it wouldn't serve his constituents at all because they'd end up paying for everyone's goodies and getting no goodies of their own.

Now there are some, Amash for example, that would like to get rid of that hazard altogether, but they have to live in the realities of their situation. Pay for everyone else's and get nothing or pay .0025% more and get a goodie?

[Dreamliner]

A politician wouldn't be able to get elected if he didn't get $$$ sent his way. Even if he had the best intentions it wouldn't serve his constituents at all because they'd end up paying for everyone's goodies and getting no goodies of their own.

Now there are some, Amash for example, that would like to get rid of that hazard altogether, but they have to live in the realities of their situation. Pay for everyone else's and get nothing or pay .0025% more and get a goodie?

I know, I know. I was just kidding. This is invariably what you get with democracy, a sort of "We've got to cut! WAIT, I didn't mean cut THAT!!!" phenomenon.

[QGator2414]

If you can't cut Big Bird (PBS), who can fly on his own, no help from taxpayers, what the hell can you cut ?

Excellent point!

Yet we continue to spend, borrow and print as if it is not our problem...

[QGator2414]

Sure they can. It has happened regularly throughout history.

Right. They will just discharge the massive debt we hand them at the snap of a finger. There will be no consequences for that at all...

:roll:

[wgbgator]

Right. They will just discharge the massive debt we hand them at the snap of a finger. There will be no consequences for that at all...

:roll:

Why would someone choose to pay something they don't feel they owe or were obligated to pay? I don't really understand this, especially when the bulk of the debt is owed to ourselves. So if people decide they don't owe it anymore, who's collecting?

[philnotfil]

Says who? I know that our federal government has shown it can burden future generations by getting involved in healthcare.

Reality. We already spend more government money per capita on health care than do most single payer systems. But they cover all of their citizens.

And what federal department do I send the bill to if I send my kids to private school? The federal government has proven it can burden future generations with its involvment here as well...

Sure, and some people don't use the highways or the postal service, but they still have to pay the federal taxes that pay for those things.

[QGator2414]

Why would someone choose to pay something they don't feel they owe or were obligated to pay? I don't really understand this, especially when the bulk of the debt is owed to ourselves. So if people decide they don't owe it anymore, who's collecting?

Is this how we justify our federal governments spending? As if there will be no inflation or burden placed on our future generations?

They are obligated to pay it because we are going to hand them the debt. Just wait for those interest rates to rise for us/them to deal with it as well...

[QGator2414]

Reality. We already spend more government money per capita on health care than do most single payer systems. But they cover all of their citizens.



Sure, and some people don't use the highways or the postal service, but they still have to pay the federal taxes that pay for those things.

Who cares if it covers everyone. Coverage does not gurantee you health or the avoidance of bankruptcy as it is now. The fact we cannot tax half the population along with the the governments proof that it cannot control costs when it comes to healthcare is enough to know more involvement is something to avoid...

Interstates (key word that is different than highway) and the postal service are both on solid constitutional ground without abusing the commerce or welfare clause...

[wgbgator]

Is this how we justify our federal governments spending? As if there will be no inflation or burden placed on our future generations?

They are obligated to pay it because we are going to hand them the debt. Just wait for those interest rates to rise for us/them to deal with it as well...

I'm not searching for justifications. Just wondering why anyone would pay for something they felt they didnt owe, that's all. If I, as a hypothetical member of a future generation felt that I had been unfairly saddled with crippling debt that I didnt owe, paying it would not be something I'd be willing to do.

[Matthanuf06]

Why would someone choose to pay something they don't feel they owe or were obligated to pay? I don't really understand this, especially when the bulk of the debt is owed to ourselves. So if people decide they don't owe it anymore, who's collecting?

Because then we default, creditors no longer trust the US Government and will no longer borrow, rates will have to skyrocket, the dollar plummets, etc. Basic Econ.

Logically, how do you think we would be able to fund the deficit if nobody will allow us to borrow from them?

[philnotfil]

Who cares if it covers everyone. Coverage does not gurantee you health or the avoidance of bankruptcy as it is now. The fact we cannot tax half the population along with the the governments proof that it cannot control costs when it comes to healthcare is enough to know more involvement is something to avoid...

Look at how much our government spends per capita on health care. Look at our health outcomes. Look at how much other countries spend per capita on health care. Look at their health outcomes. Now try to convince anyone that our system works better.

Interstates (key word that is different than highway) and the postal service are both on solid constitutional ground without abusing the commerce or welfare clause...

This is true. I'm not sure what it has to do with your original question (And what federal department do I send the bill to if I send my kids to private school?), but it is certainly true.

[wgbgator]

Because then we default, creditors no longer trust the US Government and will no longer borrow, rates will have to skyrocket, the dollar plummets, etc. Basic Econ.

Logically, how do you think we would be able to fund the deficit if nobody will allow us to borrow from them?

Well, if a plurarilty of citizens felt that the debt was not theirs to pay, the US government would no longer need to borrow. It would have no legitimacy to borrow, print money or govern anyways. Basic econ is irrelevant, or at least less relevant than philosophy and history.

[MichiGator2002]

Smallest increase in government spending, different from smallest spending.

Which is in and of itself BS since it necessarily means pretending Bush and not Obama spent every dime in legislation between inauguration and FY 2009 ending.

[MichiGator2002]

Future generations could always decide something different. That's kind of what democracy means. I'm not sure why policy should be decided by hypothetical people who don't yet exist, and may not even agree with you.

Future generations can't decide that the sovereign debt isn't owed, they can't decide that the currency is worth more, they can't decide what reality itself obliges them to recognize or doesn't. If the family farm gets burned down, the inheritors can't decide it is standing again -- they can just try to repair the ruin left for them.

[Matthanuf06]

Well, if a plurarilty of citizens felt that the debt was not theirs to pay, the US government would no longer need to borrow. It would have no legitimacy to borrow, print money or govern anyways. Basic econ is irrelevant, or at least less relevant than philosophy and history.

And that's called a default, which will result in a collapsing dollar. We can decide to default, but we can't decide what the worth of a USD is.

[QGator2414]

I'm not searching for justifications. Just wondering why anyone would pay for something they felt they didnt owe, that's all. If I, as a hypothetical member of a future generation felt that I had been unfairly saddled with crippling debt that I didnt owe, paying it would not be something I'd be willing to do.

So are you saying my generation or the future generation should be able to opt out of SS and programs that will not give them back what they paid? Yes I know this sounds like a dumb question but...

This not a hypthetical. We are saddling out future generations with a burden to pay. The consequences are real!

[QGator2414]

Look at how much our government spends per capita on health care. Look at our health outcomes. Look at how much other countries spend per capita on health care. Look at their health outcomes. Now try to convince anyone that our system works better.



This is true. I'm not sure what it has to do with your original question (And what federal department do I send the bill to if I send my kids to private school?), but it is certainly true.

So why not get government out of healthcare instead of more involved? You seem to imply our government has not clue on what it is doing with regards to healthcare. What makes you think spending more money will all of a sudden make things better?

[QGator2414]

Future generations can't decide that the sovereign debt isn't owed, they can't decide that the currency is worth more, they can't decide what reality itself obliges them to recognize or doesn't. If the family farm gets burned down, the inheritors can't decide it is standing again -- they can just try to repair the ruin left for them.

Exactly.

And in the hypothetical world we have created on this thread I would not longer send in FICA taxes and many other things to the federal government...

[Dreamliner]

Americans consistently tell pollsters that government is too big and they consistently vote for more of it.

Therefore, it's beyond me why anyone should wonder why we have the politicians we do.

[wgbgator]

And that's called a default, which will result in a collapsing dollar. We can decide to default, but we can't decide what the worth of a USD is.

That's not really what I was getting at. I was getting more at deciding that legitimacy of the debt itself was questionable, and therefore the legitimacy of the state itself. What then? The value of a piece of paper means nothing then, like Confederate money or borrowing authority in 1866. People will just circulate other IOUs based on other values. New governments will emerge.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Will the entire internet rise up as one and say "No sir! You mean increasing the deficit!"

Will it happen? It'll happen, right? Because we're smarter now?

Actually, the next candidate will be able to run on lowering government spending. Hopefully successfully.

[Dreamliner]

Actually, the next candidate will be able to run on lowering government spending. Hopefully successfully.

Don't count on it. Ten years ago there were ample forebodings that we'd reached the end.

[wgbgator]

Future generations can't decide that the sovereign debt isn't owed, they can't decide that the currency is worth more, they can't decide what reality itself obliges them to recognize or doesn't. If the family farm gets burned down, the inheritors can't decide it is standing again -- they can just try to repair the ruin left for them.

They surely can decide the debt isnt owed. It entails some level of civil revolt or the dissolution of the state's legitimacy by a plurality. We are a government who's authority rests with the people after all, not a state mint. I'm not suggesting its easy or simply involves saying it three times fast. A states authority to borrow is relative to its legitimacy, because they are the ones backing IOUs.

[QGator2414]

They surely can decide the debt isnt owed. It entails some level of civil revolt or the dissolution of the state's legitimacy by a plurality. We are a government who's authority rests with the people after all, not a state mint. I'm not suggesting its easy or simply involves saying it three times fast. A states authority to borrow is relative to its legitimacy, because they are the ones backing IOUs.

So your point is who cars if we spend money we do not have...so we leave our kids the option of revolt and tearing down what we left them or pay for the mess we left them?

Sounds like we are a splendid group that has no regard for the future generations...

[philnotfil]

So why not get government out of healthcare instead of more involved? You seem to imply our government has not clue on what it is doing with regards to healthcare. What makes you think spending more money will all of a sudden make things better?

I am implying that our current hybrid system is inefficient, and that more privatization hasn't been shown to increase overall health outcomes, or to lower overall prices. Single payer has been shown, in real life, to increase health outcomes and decrease health costs.

We don't need to spend more money, as I have pointed out several times (and this is the piece of information that finally moved me into the single payer camp), we are already spending enough money to do the job.

[wgbgator]

So your point is who cars if we spend money we do not have...so we leave our kids the option of revolt and tearing down what we left them or pay for the mess we left them?

Sounds like we are a splendid group that has no regard for the future generations...

That's not my point at all. As long as people think the state can make good on an IOU in the future, there's no reason to question the debt. But crippling debt or self-inflicted wounds would put that into question anyway. If spending becomes critical, it will either be addressed, or the country will fail. Panic over the debt for "future generations" seems pointless to me, other than as a means to achieve certain policy ends in the present.

[Matthanuf06]

That's not really what I was getting at. I was getting more at deciding that legitimacy of the debt itself was questionable, and therefore the legitimacy of the state itself. What then? The value of a piece of paper means nothing then, like Confederate money or borrowing authority in 1866. People will just circulate other IOUs based on other values. New governments will emerge.

Sure, but what is your point exactly? That we can run up the tab and if a future generation cannot or doesnt want to pay it they should collapse the country into some lawless land of bartering goods and services?

[Matthanuf06]

That's not my point at all. As long as people think the state can make good on an IOU in the future, there's no reason to question the debt. But crippling debt or self-inflicted wounds would put that into question anyway. If spending becomes critical, it will either be addressed, or the country will fail. Panic over the debt for "future generations" seems pointless to me, other than as a means to achieve certain policy ends in the present.

And that's the point of our current debate. I'd rather address the issue than have the country fail. And while it isn't a true linear degradation, it isn't binary either. The debt burden does, and has begun to, and will continue to, negatively impact the economy. It's not just a fail or thrive option.

[wgbgator]

Sure, but what is your point exactly? That we can run up the tab and if a future generation cannot or doesnt want to pay it they should collapse the country into some lawless land of bartering goods and services?

See #75.

[wgbgator]

And that's the point of our current debate. I'd rather address the issue than have the country fail. And while it isn't a true linear degradation, it isn't binary either. The debt burden does, and has begun to, and will continue to, negatively impact the economy. It's not just a fail or thrive option.

That's not a position shared by a plurality though. So, that doesnt mean the debt is necessarily dangerous or spending is "out of control." Basically, at the point of real crisis, the political system will be force to either make it so revenues are in line with current spending or that spending is slashed into line with projected revenue, or somewhere in between. What the system has done instead is set up phony showdowns, which are easy to delay or kick down the road, or a tool to extract prefered policy outcomes. To me, that means that there is no debt crisis.

[QGator2414]

I am implying that our current hybrid system is inefficient, and that more privatization hasn't been shown to increase overall health outcomes, or to lower overall prices. Single payer has been shown, in real life, to increase health outcomes and decrease health costs.

We don't need to spend more money, as I have pointed out several times (and this is the piece of information that finally moved me into the single payer camp), we are already spending enough money to do the job.

How do you suppose the government pay for millions (100's of millions at that) more to get healthcare if it takes over for us? It has proven it cannot and does not have the will to control costs already...

[QGator2414]

And I agree our system is inefficient. With the government being the definition of the most inefficient part...

[QGator2414]

That's not my point at all. As long as people think the state can make good on an IOU in the future, there's no reason to question the debt. But crippling debt or self-inflicted wounds would put that into question anyway. If spending becomes critical, it will either be addressed, or the country will fail. Panic over the debt for "future generations" seems pointless to me, other than as a means to achieve certain policy ends in the present.

Awesome. No reason to question the debt as long as we get ours. This is why we have screwed every generation since 1937 with SS. Because ere is no reason to question getting more than one paid...

I feel for our kids and I am sorry we have people that think there is no reason to question our debt because the state can make them pay for it one day. Or of course you can revolt...

[QGator2414]

There is no debt crisis people. The fed has QEi rolling right now so do not worry what we leave out kids...

But remember we can set up a situation where revolt is a better option than the inflation and debt we leave you...

[bluelang]

Things we learned:

1) most of you would, in fact, vote for someone who promised "lower taxes" even though you know damn well it just means "more deficit"
2) wgbgator is a smart dude with a forgettable user name

[DeanMeadGator]

Its easy to run on cutting spending, which people like in abstract. Everyone runs on cutting unecessary spending, D & R. What people don't like is specifics on what gets cut, because it turns out people do find that spending necessary.

It clearly appears that a huge number of people are more concerned about not giving up anything than the result on their children [we have 3] and grandchildren [we have 6].

I would willingly give up something if I was assured that what I give up will not be spent on another inane and wasteful government program or for another wasteful government expense. I am not in favor of the further erosion of the economic well-being of future generations based on our unwillingness to stop spending as if there will be no tomorrow.

To reduce or not to reduce the deficit - that is the question. The answer [and actions or inactions taken in accordance with the answer] will have major impacts on our country and future generations of Americans.

[DeanMeadGator]

Things we learned:

1) most of you would, in fact, vote for someone who promised "lower taxes" even though you know damn well it just means "more deficit"
2) wgbgator is a smart dude with a forgettable user name

Calculate the yearly interest accrual on $16 trillion of debt. Deduct therefrom the additional tax revenue for that same year. Apply resulting surplus [if any] to additional spending that year. Calculate increase in deficit that year.

Someone please calculate the daily interest accrual on $16 trillion of debt [assume a 3% interest rate].

[philnotfil]

How do you suppose the government pay for millions (100's of millions at that) more to get healthcare if it takes over for us? It has proven it cannot and does not have the will to control costs already...

We already spend enough government money on health care to do the job. We wouldn't need to increase government spending on health care.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

We already spend enough government money on health care to do the job. We wouldn't need to increase government spending on health care.

Indeed we do. And will soon spend a lot more under ObamaCare.

[QGator2414]

We already spend enough government money on health care to do the job. We wouldn't need to increase government spending on health care.

I am confused. If we go single payer then all of a sudden the thousands of dollars I spend on healthcare each year for my family and our employees (not to mention what they spend that insurance does not cover) will be picked up by what entity?

Is this single payer thing not government?

[QGator2414]

Indeed we do. And will soon spend a lot more under ObamaCare.

That is just it. We are about to spend an extra trillion assuming you think the government can accurately calculate the cost (how did Medicare work out for us?)...

[philnotfil]

Indeed we do. And will soon spend a lot more under ObamaCare.

Which is why we should have skipped that and gone straight to single payer.

[philnotfil]

I am confused. If we go single payer then all of a sudden the thousands of dollars I spend on healthcare each year for my family and our employees (not to mention what they spend that insurance does not cover) will be picked up by what entity?

Is this single payer thing not government?

Right now we have a bastardized hybrid system that is inefficient and wasteful. A single payer system is much more efficient and much less wasteful. So much so that many countries with a single payer system covering all of their citizens pay less per capita than we currently do despite our not covering even a majority of our citizens.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Which is why we should have skipped that and gone straight to single payer.

Why? Because our Federal Government has shown it can control costs and improve service in a competitive industry?

My goodness.

I am an older man and probably should favor single payer. But I just can't get my mind around it, when there are plenty of examples in other countries where it does not work very well.

[philnotfil]

Why? Because our Federal Government has shown it can control costs and improve service in a competitive industry?

My goodness.

I am an older man and probably should favor single payer. But I just can't get my mind around it, when there are plenty of examples in other countries where it does not work very well.

It could be that us Americans are too stupid to make it work when so many other countries are getting better health care for less under a single payer system, but I like to think that we could figure out how to make it work if they can.

[QGator2414]

Right now we have a bastardized hybrid system that is inefficient and wasteful. A single payer system is much more efficient and much less wasteful. So much so that many countries with a single payer system covering all of their citizens pay less per capita than we currently do despite our not covering even a majority of our citizens.

It is inefficient and wasteful because the government is incapable of controlling cost and mandates we cover things like birth control now...

If we could get government out of the way the private sector could take care of the inefficiencies. I prefer to be able to start treatment tomorrow if diagnosed with something like cancer or the need of bypass surgery...

Sadly we are headed to corporate volume based medicine...

[philnotfil]

It is inefficient and wasteful because the government is incapable of controlling cost and mandates we cover things like birth control now...

If we could get government out of the way the private sector could take care of the inefficiencies. I prefer to be able to start treatment tomorrow if diagnosed with something like cancer or the need of bypass surgery...

Sadly we are headed to corporate volume based medicine...

How do you explain all of the single payer systems that provide better healthcare at lower costs?

[QGator2414]

How do you explain all of the single payer systems that provide better healthcare at lower costs?

How do you prove they provide better healthcare?

I like knowing my aunt was able to begin treatment the day after she was diagnosed with cancer a year ago...

[QGator2414]

We live in a country of people that treat their bodies like crap yet have phenomenal healthcare that is marred by government beauracracy....