Pubs to leverage sequestration---balance budget in 10 years

[fredsanford]

We'll have a plan to balance the budget in 10 years, and at some point we'll get a pub prez like Bush who will say, "the heck with that, we have to scrap it to go attack INSERT MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY HERE."

[g8orbill]

your prez will NEVER put forth a plan to balance the budget

[mastoidbone]

There is NO WAY IN hell Obama or Dems pursue a balanced budget on their own---i ask EVERY dem or liberal on this board to look deep inside themselves and ask if that is true?
Would Dems cut entitlements enough?
would dems reduce govt pay (unions) enough?
would Dems cut defense enough?
would dems reduce govt agencies enough??

The only way Clinton got close to doing so was GREAT economic growth---where he OUTGREW the deficit with a wonderful economy he oversaw. But lets assume NORMAL GDP of 3% over next 10-15 years.

Such GDP growth means ONLY way to balance budget is MASSIVE cuts with increased revenue.

I challenge ANY PUB to show me how Pubs would agree to LOTS of revenue?
I challenge any DEM to show me Dems take on govt pay, pensions, entitlements---no way.

[PITBOSS]

Originally Posted by mastoidbone

....The key will be getting some entitlement cuts, some tax reform , and some more revenue.
....

i agree.

but NO ONE, including repubs, want areas cut that may impact THEM.

...and just wait until they try to cut defense...

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by 108

I am hoping that cuts to entitlements (biggest being medicare) will force us to look for ways to get better outcomes with reduced costs, rather than just cut off the money and shift the burden to the individual, which will hurt demand

The costs of healthcare is really where we need to be zeroed in on....the big money won't allow it though

Agree

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by 108

The costs of healthcare is really where we need to be zeroed in on....the big money won't allow it though

This suggests that somehow "the big money" has managed to suspend the laws of supply and demand?

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

This suggests that somehow "the big money" has managed to suspend the laws of supply and demand?

Big pharma + trial lawyers are a big part of the problem

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Big pharma + trial lawyers are a big part of the problem

Trial lawyers are merely a cost component. Costs can and do impact price and price certainly can impact demand.

I am not sure why you rag on "big pharma?"

[Minister_of_Information]

Because their lobby is standing squarely in the way of cost controls?

BTW, the laws of supply and demand presume discretion not life or death.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by rpmGator

Cutting infrastructure when we have 100 year old sewers, and bridges that will fall down is kicking your can down the road. It's on that list if some of you can get past the hate for SS and Medicare.

Keeping oil loopholes so an industry making more than ever can pay less to this nation, isn't on the list of cuts. Go figure.

Do Republicans want to lose the house also. That is the way its going.

Federal government shouldn't be building bridges and sewers. That should be state or local spending. The biggest problem with the federal budget is spending on things outside its constitutional mandates.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Because their lobby is standing squarely in the way of cost controls?

BTW, the laws of supply and demand presume discretion not life or death.

You mean government sponsored/mandated cost controls? Surely you are informed enough to know better than that.

And as far as life or death, where is the health care crises so many people speak of when trying to defend some kind of government intrusion into the health insurance/health care industry?


Where are the massive increases in death and disease? Hell, where are the minor ones?

I am no more happy about increasing costs of health care and health insurance than anyone. But most of the increases can be tied directly to increases in demand. I am not saying demanding more and better health care is a bad thing, but increasing demand always means increasing price.

[Minister_of_Information]

The problem is that care is not discretionary.

BTW, big pharma is subsidized by Medicare, and they want to keep it that way.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Because their lobby is standing squarely in the way of cost controls?

BTW, the laws of supply and demand presume discretion not life or death.

Government cost controls always result in diminishing supply. Bad solution.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wygator

Government cost controls always result in diminishing supply. Bad solution.

Not if the cost controls impact a subsidy. You can't have it both ways.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Not if the cost controls impact a subsidy. You can't have it both ways.

Not sure I understand...please explain.

By the way, I should have said "price" controls. Government can't really change the true "cost" of anything, but can dictate "price".

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wygator

Not sure I understand...please explain.

By the way, I should have said "price" controls. Government can't really change the true "cost" of anything, but can dictate "price".

Medicare pays for treatments that otherwise could not be afforded (subsidy). They are prevented from negotiating bulk rates which occurs all the time under the free market paradigm (big pharma lobby). This should be easy.

[108]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

This suggests that somehow "the big money" has managed to suspend the laws of supply and demand?

what I mean is that if the cost is merely shifted to the individual, that will take money out of their pocket, and the less money in their pocket, the less they spend, which equals less demand

there is a lot of money being made at the expense of the health of Americans, and it will take a huge fight to implement cost controls, which are needed

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The problem is that care is not discretionary.

BTW, big pharma is subsidized by Medicare, and they want to keep it that way.

Medical care is not discretionary? Hmmmm.......


The way we (Americans) are using it, a good deal of it is entirely discretionary.


And if Medicare is the problem, then let's change it or eliminate it. We don't need even MORE government intrusion into health care.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Not if the cost controls impact a subsidy. You can't have it both ways.

Indeed. So get rid of the subsidy. Medicare should be handled no differently than welfare.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Indeed. So get rid of the subsidy. Medicare should be handled no differently than welfare.

If you mean bare bones pay-go single payer, I agree.