why should we have to pay our debts? cause that's what responsible adults do DD. Maybe i don't understand what you are asking. we have national healthcare programs. they are a large part of the problem.
Its a big deal when the Democrats are in charge. It's not when the Republicans are. This is the Republican logic.
Not in and of itself. In fact with interest rates so low deficit spending is fine. It's like getting a 0% interest car loan even if you could pay cash. I wish our government was functional enough to have a conversation about government investment value, velocity of money, when to spend ba cut spending. Politics is interfering so instead of acting rationally the parties are more interested in getting elected.
"I said its immoral to make no effort. I do think less of a person who can't pay their debts though." I believe though means something similar to however or although and that's how I thought you mean that you would think less of a person who simply can't pay their debt, even if an effort is made. If you didn't think that way, then ok. No problem. I would add that an effort isn't always possible. If you are paralyze, there isn't much you can do.
No one's health should ever be subject to being a DEBT - healthcare should not be a FOR PROFIT business, that is 100% the problem, and why we pay the most of any country for meds etc.... It is out of ****ing hand. SpaceGhost, Casinos are not even remotely in the same league here, Casinos are voluntary, healthcare is a necessity - your comparison is frankly stupid. DD
The part was about healthcare and whether a guy should be in DEBT for getting in an accident...that should NEVER happen. Thus the point.... DD
This is an example of hearing a stat and regurgitating it without knowing any actual context or facts. The 6% is accurate - what you failed to mention (or know) is that this is the lowest it's been in many decades. In the 1990's, for example, interest was around 15% of the total budget. One could argue that it's only that low now because federal spending has gone up, but that would be inaccurate too. As a portion of total national GDP, interest payments are the lowest in 40+ years as well.
Yes, those are the options, and yes, they would be globally catastrophic, and moreso domestically. Iceland came out ok, but Iceland's currency was never the global standard as the Dollar is. A more relevant preview of what would (will?) happen is the Weimar Republic, where the DM went from being on par with the USD to being worth millions times less. Not sure why you say it won't require it in SS. As bad as the current debt is, it is the unfunded liabilities (SS, Medicare, and Medicaid) that are the real concern. We can't even pay our current bills, and those bills are set to skyrocket due to those items. Those are projected currently at over $200 Trillion dollars, up from projections of $120 Trillion just a couple years ago. Compare this with the current debt of just under $20 Trillion, and further compare both with the current US GDP of about $18 Trillion, or more scarily compare it with the current global GDP of about $70 Trillion. Think about that...the projected unfunded liabilities are about 3 times what the entire world makes in a year. What does this huge gap indicate needs to happen? Ya, that's not gonna happen, is it. Leading us back to the 2 scenarios you pointed out, DD. FWIW, the above also doesn't take into consideration the impacts of these steps. What would happen to the economy, for example, if indeed taxes were raised 57%? The economy would likely drop...money spent on taxes is money not spent on other things. Meaning the actual taxes would need to increase even more..making the economic drop ever larger, etc. The even scarier part of these huge numbers? They are in current dollars (net present value). Meaning they will be a lot larger when they actually come up. Anybody see an $222 Trillion investment taking place immediately? No, so when these liabilities start to accrue, many of them a couple decades from now, the actual numbers will be far larger, double or triple these already ginormous sums. The best that could be done is taking MUCH stronger steps to get the deficit under control while growing the economy. This has been exactly what Trump has proposed doing. Will he succeed at it? We shall see. The other thing that then needs to be done is simple, yet oh so difficult. Simply reign back in those unfunded liabilities. It makes no sense to include items on our books we already know we won't be able to pay for. it makes even less sense (economically) to continue to pile these unfunded liabilities up. How to fix that? Pass a law saying that nothing can be included in the budget or other laws without also including a mechanism for paying for it.
Shouldn't it? A very open question. I could argue it either way, but the bottom line is that somebody has to pay for it, so if its not the people getting in the accidents, it is everybody else. If everybody else is fine with creating a system that covers this, then great! But this was the huge lie in Obamacare...that you can't cover these things for everybody without it raising everybody's costs. It would essentially be an insurance program everybody would need to buy into, literally and figuratively. To which I do agree that one can't really talk about debt without talking about healthcare. Healthcare is a huge part of the debt, particularly the unfunded liabilities. It is also the largest sector of the economy, and growing rapidly. So, one can't ignore its importance.
wasn't a big deal under Reagan or Bush. Seems to be a big deal only when dems have the White House. Funny how that is.
Except that it isn't. By far, the largest portion of federal outlays go to socalled entitlement programs. Military spending is about 15% of the budget, Healthcare, SS, etc make up over 60%. So, they are the number 1 place to cut, by a long way, simply because they are where most of the expenditures are. As a point worth bringing up, to solve this problem, the term 'entitlement' just needs to go away. Whoever came up with it is a marketing genius, because it doesn't actually apply. Nothing in these entitement programs are anything anyone is actually entitled to. And they are what is driving our deficit, and even more importantly, our unfunded liabilities. So, step 1 in solving these problems is making people understand that they aren't entitled to them, and that the government can't provide all this without becoming insolvent. They are nice things to have if we can afford them...but as currently constructed, we can't.
It's been a big deal since the 70's, under Ford. Ford actually recognized the problem, and put forward a plan to 'fix' the problem for SS...but the government couldn't keep from spending the extra money being taken from us to address this problem. Many criticized Bush and some of the programs he put forward, such as the prescription drug plan. Reagan did address the debt in his tax reforms, Congress just couldn't/wouldn't comply with the required spending cuts. But he wouldn't have proposed them in the first place if they weren't a big deal to people. Yes, you will likely hear more about it when Dems hold power, simply because for most liberals, it isn't a big deal. So, you didn't hear a lot of liberals griping when Bush passed the prescription drug plan, etc. Nor would the media, being almost entirely liberal, especially then, make a big deal of it. Did you? I'm curious, Sweet Lou, aside from all the rhetoric you like to post, are you not concerned at all that the government really has no way to pay for all the social programs it has put forth?
We pay so much because it ISN'T run as a business, but is excessively regulated. One can get better care in India, for far less money. Not because doctors are cheaper there, but because capitalism in health care is rampant there. It has driven down costs and driven up efficiency and effectiveness. Over here, it is too close to a monopoly, and medical malpractice insurance is a HUGE burden, often accounting for over 50% of a doctor's costs. There is no containment of costs, or reason for health providers to become more efficient. Costs are skyrocketing, not being driven down as they should be in a market solution. So, no, it isn't 100% of the problem. In fact, it may not be the problem at all, but rather the solution. See Healthcare, Meet Capitalism. In any case, it doesn't make any difference who is paying for it, if costs keep rising as they are, since those costs are unsustainable. What did Obamacare do to contain these costs, by the way? Nothing. Nothing at all. So, it didn't even address the actual problem, which is why it has been a failure.
Actually no, everyone should bare the burden from our tax dollars, healthcare should not be a "FOR PROFIT" business. Healthcare is not an option, it is a right. And the ACA has not been a failure it is a first step towards a single payer solution which is what every other civilized country has in the world...... DD
Inflation is merely the expansion of money. For context, in the last 20 years we went from a global GDP of ~$31 trillion in 1996 to ~$74 trillion in 2016. There has been monumental growth... outside of developed countries. The growth is there, Americans simply were oblivious to what has happened over the last 20 years. Sounds like you are one of those that believe in savings account to build wealth. You don't need to be wealthy to put a small portion of your income into a 401k or S&P500 fund.
Sure it does. I bet it probably looked like it would be hard to pay off WW2 and rebuilding Europe 60 years a go but you don't hear about that anymore.
Philosophically and ethically it shouldn't, if only it didn't require practitioners with a specialized skill, using top flight equipment and complex chemical products with a legal risk that requires a near zero margin of error. You have convince every one at every link in this chain to continue to train and operate at full competence without leveraging it financially in the most dynamic economy in history.
