But when I pay back that $1, I immediately have it to spend once again. If the government had $7 trillion in the bank and decided to pay off the debt, they'd pay roughly $4 trillion to the public and then another $3 trillion to itself. Now, the government has spent the entire $7 trillion they had in the bank. How much does the government have now? Zero? No. They have $3 trillion, free and clear and ready to spend.
But when I pay back that $1, I immediately have it to spend once again. Ahh - that's what I was missing. Interesting - I never really knew that about the debt.
Remember also that those numbers (including the 2018 payoff date) were based on a very different economy and a government running surpluses. We are going to add over $1 TRILLION to the debt during Bush's presidency, and that is assuming he gets booted this year.
That's not the point, though. The point is that the numbers AT THE TIME were wrong if they were to count the entire debt. The numbers were only correct AT THE TIME if they did not include the debt held by the government. THe 2018 payoff date was based on the idea that the debt was $3.6 trillion. If the total debt AT THE TIME was included, the debt number should've been $5.6 trillion, making for a further-out payoff date based on numbers that were current AT THE TIME.
so how much money should we spend to save these people? aren't there many more people dying of obesity every year? wouldn't the government be better off trying to reduce the epidemic levels of obesity rather than trying to give health care coverage to everyone in america? doesnt the idea of universal health care just flat out sound like something that would become horribly inefficient like every other government program that exists? i know the idea sounds wonderful....kind of like bush's mars plan....but how will we make sure that it is efficient and that it doesn't become a huge drain on government spending and taxpayers. also, lets put these numbers in perspective...thats .0058% of the population.
heres a partial reason, since the rest of the developed world has universal healthcare, the US pharmaceutical industry has been lobbying to prevent that from happening at home. Considering the incredible size of the industry, and Bush's hardon for large wealthy corporations, he is going to keep them as they are, making lots of money instead having to sacrifice their efforts to get no profits back (although making millions happy). thats the problem with healthcare these days, people only want to produce the newest drugs for money. Giving universal healthcare will save and treat hundreds and millions of people over time, but the industry wont get enough money or motivation to invest time and money into research and development. if i was in charge, i would give a lot of healthcare to the poor and give less and less as the income level and need gets greater. but i doubt that will ever happen.
Some things are more important than tax rates. If we can find money to invade and occupy countries half-way around the world, we can find money to make sure our children have good health care.
Hey, it's Atkins for everyone according to the Bushies... background: We already subsidized the US sugar industry, and put import duties sky high on foreign sugar. Weird how factory farming has so much pull in this country. White House Opposes UN Report on Obesity http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040116/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_obesity . . . The WHO report recommends eating more fruits and vegetables and limiting fats and salt. It also suggests governments limit food advertising aimed at children and encourage their citizens to eat healthier foods. Taxes and subsidies could be used to reduce the price of healthy food and make them more attractive to consumers, the report said. The International Obesity Task Force estimates that 300 million people worldwide are obese and 750 million more are overweight, including 22 million children under age 5. Steiger said in his letter that the WHO report did not adequately address an individual's responsibility to balance one's diet with one's physical activities, and objected to singling out specific types of foods, such as those high in fat and sugar. . . .
Because universal health care has only been a topic since Bush has been in office??? Why do you think other Presidents havent acted on it. Be fair, this has nothing to do with GWB.
Lost in all this is that there is major medical research done in space and the benefits do affect us here on the ground. I'm not a big fan of an expensive moon mission, but I sure would like to know what research will be done while we are there before blasting it.
