Paul: We dont have a revenue problem, we have spending problem

I have to agree with the good doctor.

Ron Paul said Tuesday that Americans should be "outraged" over President Obama's budget proposal and echoed fellow Republicans in arguing that the plan fell short of the president's promises to reduce deficit spending.

“There are some like the President who believe we can simply tax ourselves out of this predicament, I totally disagree. Washington does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. So, it doesn’t matter how much we raise taxes, if we do not cure our disease of overspending we will not end the vicious cycle of borrowing and printing well beyond our means," Paul said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...h-obama-budget

You think he coined that term today?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You think he coined that term today?

---

how is this relevant?

I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!

We have both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

how is this relevant?

---

Do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

We have both.

---

We are collecting slightly less revenue because of the current economy, but spending way too much more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

We have both.

---

:toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

We are collecting slightly less revenue because of the current economy, but spending way too much more.

---

:toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

We have both.

---

This.

We have a spending problem and a revenue problem. The Bush tax cuts were not needed. Scrap the tax cuts for the rich now and scrap the rest once the economy fully recovers. Defense is already being cut, Medicare has to be worked on next or it will swallow our budget in the future. I would also like to see a financial transactions tax implemented specifically to help pay down our long term debt.

Anything Ron Paul related is redundant.

Quote:

---

Within the decade – if current policies stay in place – revenues will return to their historical levels, but not beyond. Even if the 2001, 2003, and 2010 tax cuts are extended, as they are in the AFS, revenues are projected to rise from 16.1 percent of GDP in 2012 to 18.0 percent in 2017, and then remain roughly at that level for the remainder of the decade. This approximates the average U.S. revenue level in the modern era.

In times of better fiscal health, such receipts might have been sufficient, but the coming decades do not fit the bill. First, our public debt is already at 72 percent of GDP – higher than it has been in over half a century – and projected to increase further. Second, a wave of baby boomers are beginning to descend on the entitlement programs, and supporting them in retirement will require additional spending even if significant reforms are made to control costs. Between these two trends, we will not be able to collect revenues at “normal” levels if we want to have a sustainable budget and a functioning economy.



The four balanced budgets in recent times have come at revenue levels between 19.5 and 20.6 percent of GDP. We will need to at least enter that range if we hope to stabilize the debt, particularly with the demographic tidal wave that inevitably will add a heavy burden to the federal budget.

---

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/blog...onomic-outlook

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/site.../CBOnine_1.jpg

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/site...s/CBOten_1.jpg

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/site...s/CBOsix_0.jpg

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/site...BOeleven_1.jpg

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/site...alysis%207.jpg

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/site...s/CBOeight.jpg

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/site...les/CBOone.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/site...s/CBOten_1.jpg

---

Should be titled "Wake Up Folks, it's the Old People".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/site.../CBOnine_1.jpg

---

Historical average is something like 18.3%. That cherry picked set of years was unusual growth for this nation.

So in other words, we fucked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

So in other words, we fucked.

---

Absolutely, if we believe the lies they tell us.

Here is the historical data graphed out. Please note it is rare that tax revenue exceeds 20% of GDP. It is so rare, that WH's cherry picked data were the only years it did, in more than five decades!

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...10marginal.jpg

The revenue problem is completely due to VRWC/Repug:

unfunded Medicare Part D + Advantage

unfunded Iraq + Afganistan

unfunded tax cuts and tax expenditures for the UCA and 1%.

Repug regs disallowing "govt as single buyer" negotations with BigPharma and BigMedDefices

The rise is Medicare/Medicaid spending is due to the sick care industry charging exorbitant prices and raising prices many percent over inflation, for decades, "because they can" to everybody, not just Baby Boomers.

the annual deficit and national debt are all made worse by the above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Historical average is something like 18.3%. That cherry picked set of years was unusual growth for this nation.

---

Pointed out and contextualized at the link. Do you read anything, WC?

The growth of health care spending and runaway debt make a reversion to the historical norm untenable, the argument goes, roughly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

The revenue problem is completely due to VRWC/Repug:

unfunded Medicare Part D + Advantage

unfunded Iraq + Afganistan

unfunded tax cuts and tax expenditures for the UCA and 1%.

Repug regs disallowing "govt as single buyer" negotations with BigPharma and BigMedDefices

The rise is Medicare/Medicaid spending is due to the sick care industry charging exorbitant prices and raising prices many percent over inflation, for decades, "because they can" to everybody, not just Baby Boomers.

the annual deficit and national debt are all made worse by the above.

---

LOL this is like saying my family's revenue problem is due to us buying the Ferrari last year. Who the fuck told you to buy a Ferrari?

This is what happens when you approve budgets knowing you will have a deficit and not giving a shit about it. None of these expenses (Iraq, medicaid) should have been approved with a responsible government.

BTW, Ron Paul is not talking about the recent 10 years or so. he is talking about the recent 60-50 years. He is saying we've had this problem for that long.

In that period we went from a prosperous state to a welfare/warfare state.

Quote:

---

In that period we went from a prosperous state to a welfare/warfare state.

---

Murray Rothbard, who coined the term, died in 1995.

We've been a warfare-welfare state since WWII, tbh.

your grasp of history is notably weak, El Che

"we went from a prosperous state to a welfare/warfare state"

He's full of bullshit. America is extremely wealthy, but the wealth has been aggressively and continuously redistributed from the 99% to the 1%, so that the 99% are much poorer and declining, esp the 70%.

Paul's bullshit policies would do nothing to solve that problem and everything to worsen it (and he knows it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"we went from a prosperous state to a welfare/warfare state"

He's full of bullshit. America is extremely wealthy, but the wealth has been aggressively and continuously redistributed from the 99% to the 1%, so that the 99% are much poorer and decliing, esp the 70%.

Paul's bullshit policies would do nothing to solve that problem and everything to worsen it (and he knows it).

---

you couldn't be more wrong.

No candidate is better at fighting redistribution of wealth than Ron Paul.

The banker bailouts is the biggest crime committed to the american people in recent years. that is flagrant redistribution of wealth. This would have never happened under Ron Paul's watch. Subsidies to foreign companies. Foreign aid. Wars. All this shit, Ron Paul would end on day 1.

[Crony capitalists are the ones] that benefit from contract from government, benefit from the Federal Reserve, benefit from all the bailouts. They don’t deserve compassion. They deserve taxation or they deserve to have all their benefits removed.

But crony capitalism isn’t when someone makes money and they produce a product …. That is very important. We need to distinguish the two. And unfortunately I think some people mix that. - Ron Paul

Quote:

---

“I do agree that there’s a mal-distribution in wealth in this country,” the Texas congressman told reporters at an event sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, where he served up some boilerplate libertarian philosophy about reigning in the Federal Reserve, allowing Greece to go bankrupt and making the free market drive down costs on medical care like it has driven down costs on TVs and cellphones.
Paul, who is in the midst of his third and most notable run for the presidency since 1988, said proposals such as president Obama’s to levy new taxes on the wealthy result because Americans don’t understand what causes that “mal-distribution.”
“We’ve consumed our wealth,” he said, pointing to the national debt and adding that the knee-jerk reaction is to “spend more, regulate more, print more money.”
“Entitlements,” he said, “end up going to the rich anyway.”
Paul isn’t even entirely against a little class war. “Some of them should be attacked,” he said of the rich. “The ones who rip us off, the ones who get bailed out.”
And he assailed the suggestion that the government should invest in infrastructure to help end the economic crisis. “The government and the people are supposed to spend more money when the problem is spending too much money,” he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...tate-kucinich/

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Historical average is something like 18.3%. That cherry picked set of years was unusual growth for this nation.

---

It's not cherry-picked. He clearly identified it as years with a balanced budget.

lrn2read.

Oh, we DEFINITELY have a revenue problem now...

That problem, however, was created by our SPENDING problem.

All the medicare and SS money paid into the "trust fund" was thrown into the general revenue fund and pissed off years ago...

On top of this, we couldn't stay within our budgets even WITH stealing all the money from the "trust fund" and continued to borrow money from the private sector and abroad and run deficits.

It was great politics and horrible economics. Something for nothing. You never get a hangover if you never quit drinking.

Now that the time is coming to pay those baby boomers real dollars for real benefits all we have to pay these benefits are fucking IOU's we wrote to ourselves and mountains of additional outside debt.

exactly what I said. So silly to say we have both, so let's raise taxes and not cut a dime.

It's like me going to my boss and saying, dear boss, my wife has been maxing out my credit card every month for the last few years. So you see, I have a revenue problem. Can I get a raise? :rollin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Oh, we DEFINITELY have a revenue problem now...

That problem, however, was created by our SPENDING problem.

All the medicare and SS money paid into the "trust fund" was thrown into the general revenue fund and pissed off years ago...

---

*cough* Bush/Obama tax cuts *cough*

*cough* off the books funding for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan *cough*

healthcare = wife + credit card?

Metaphor fail.

the worst recession since the 1930's may also have something to do with the revenue problem

stealing all the money from the "trust fund"

it's not stealing, any more than SS is an entitlement. SS is obligated to loan its cash to the govt, buy bonds, which aren't IOUs, and won't be defaulted on anymore than the US govt will default bonds sold to other bond holders like wealthy Americans and foreign/sovereign govts (like China).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

stealing all the money from the "trust fund"

it's not stealing, any more than SS is an entitlement. SS is obligated to loan its cash to the govt, buy bonds, which aren't IOUs, and won't be defaulted on anymore than the US govt will default bonds sold to other bond holders like wealthy Americans and foreign/sovereign govts (like China).

---

Hey dumbass...where does the money have to come from to pay those IOU's? There are only two ways...

REVENUE OR MORE IOU's.

In order to have the revenue to pay the bonds you not only have to eliminate annual deficits but RUN A CURRENT REVENUE SURPLUS...

Fat chance of THAT ever happening...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

healthcare = wife + credit card?

Metaphor fail.

---

Quote:

---

Today, the Real Economy Project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) released an assessment of the total cost to taxpayers of the Wall Street bailout. CMD concludes that multiple federal agencies have disbursed $4.6 trillion dollars in supporting the financial sector since the meltdown in 2007-2008. Of that, $2 trillion is still outstanding. Our tally shows that the Federal Reserve is the real source of the bailout funds.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/8987

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Che

So silly to say we have both, so let's raise taxes and not cut a dime.

---

Board realists who say we have both are on record saying we we need to raise taxes and cut services. Raising taxes only addresses the revenue problem.

medicaid/medicare spending increases mirror the increases of all health spending, because the sick-care system is ripping off America with exorbitant prices, the rip-off being much more dominant factor than the Hitler's demographic bump of the baby boomers.

Anybody heard the docs scream blood murder when faced with a 27% cut in reimbursements, which has been postponed for the past several years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Pointed out and contextualized at the link. Do you read anything, WC?

The growth of health care spending and runaway debt make a reversion to the historical norm untenable, the argument goes, roughly.

---

I pointed it out for those who don't. It did say something like the average was below 20%. I forget the exact wording, but the part you quoted would imply to many readers the 20% average was sustainable.

"We dont have a revenue problem, we have spending problem"

babbling nothing but the VRWC/Repug sound bites for his ignorant sheeple bubba fucktards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I pointed it out for those who don't. It did say something like the average was below 20%. I forget the exact wording, but the part you quoted would imply to many readers the 20% average was sustainable.

---

That you jumped to conclusions doesn't make that a plausible inference. I posted the link, why didn't you follow it to see the context of the graph? That's on you, not me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

That you jumped to conclusions doesn't make that a plausible inference. I posted the link, why didn't you follow it to see the context of the graph? That's on you, not me.

---

I did follow the link. What is said when read was right in my view. Like I said, the graph without context implies otherwise.

Quote:

---

9. Within the decade – if current policies stay in place – revenues will return to their historical levels, but not beyond. Even if the 2001, 2003, and 2010 tax cuts are extended, as they are in the AFS, revenues are projected to rise from 16.1 percent of GDP in 2012 to 18.0 percent in 2017, and then remain roughly at that level for the remainder of the decade. This approximates the average U.S. revenue level in the modern era. [Average of 18.3%]

-----

The four balanced budgets in recent times have come at revenue levels between 19.5 and 20.6 percent of GDP. We will need to at least enter that range if we hope to stabilize the debt, particularly with the demographic tidal wave that inevitably will add a heavy burden to the federal budget.

---

And maintaining that range is not plausible.

why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

It's not cherry-picked. He clearly identified it as years with a balanced budget.

lrn2read.

---

The shifting of paperwork is a lie to the opublic. Each of those years, the national debt increased. If it was balanced, the debt would have maintained even, or been reduced.

No, this was the time of CMP and the Y2K scare driving worldwide industry. Liberals can say all they want it was because of the budget, but it wasn't. Revenues were only so high because the economy was better than normal.

"Each of those years, the national debt increased. If it was balanced, the debt would have maintained even, or been reduced."

You can't be serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

"Each of those years, the national debt increased. If it was balanced, the debt would have maintained even, or been reduced."

You can't be serious.

---

If the budget is in balance, how does the debt increase then?

*hint* interest for starters.

The first misconception is that the US economy is anything like a household economy. That fallacy is present at least once in this thread.

The second misconception is that the US is going to "bankrupt" or be unable to pay it's obligations.

As things stands, the only two concerns the US economy has going forward are:

A) Inflation, due to the population having too much money to spend (we're not there)
B) Abusing and losing it's position as the world's reserve currency (doubtful at this stage)

Anything else right now is political pandering. There's no "burden of debt" left to our children :cry, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

You can't be serious.

---

Oh, he is serious. We had this discussion already, he just doesn't know basic accounting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

The first misconception is that the US economy is anything like a household economy. That fallacy is present at least once in this thread.

The second misconception is that the US is going to "bankrupt" or be unable to pay it's obligations.

As things stands, the only two concerns the US economy has going forward are:

A) Inflation, due to the population having too much money to spend (we're not there)
B) Abusing and losing it's position as the world's reserve currency (doubtful at this stage)

Anything else right now is political pandering. There's no "burden of debt" left to our children :cry, etc.

---

Says the guy with zero credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

*hint* interest for starters.

---

Oh I see...

Do you not consider interest as part of your monthly household budget?

Do you keep spending, keeping interest off the books?

Wake up and smell reality. Stop being addicted to that Hopium.

Here are the debt numbers from table 7.1:


Year $Billions
1990 3,206,290
1991 3,598,178
1992 4,001,787
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700
2001 5,769,881
2002 6,198,401
2003 6,760,014
2004 7,354,657
2005 7,905,300
2006 8,451,350
2007 8,950,744
2008 9,986,082
2009 11,875,851
2010 13,528,807
2011 14,764,222

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Says the guy with zero credibility.

---

Who is that guy?

No comment on the economics side?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Oh I see...

---

No, you really don't see. We already had this discussion and you got schooled on it.

Feel free to bump that thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Who is that guy?

No comment on the economics side?

---

Dude, I have a lot of comments but you are so delusional that I don't feel like wasting my time on you. We can't continue to have a geometric expansion of debt with a relatively flat GDP. The ONLY choice will be to monetize the debt and you honestly don't think that will blow the dollar and create inflation? Like I said, delusional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

No, you really don't see. We already had this discussion and you got schooled on it.

Feel free to bump that thread.

---

If you want to hide behind a second set of books like criminals, be my guest. I was not schooled on it though. Facts are facts. the debt increased under president Clinton, so any claim he had a balanced budget is a fraud. You always consider future liabilities. The only way to actually spend less is to manipulate all the debt to be due outside a given window, yet you then blame the debt under president Bush on him.

Table 1.1 indicates two years of spending very slightly less than revenues. Only $88 billion. The four years claimed ore from borrowing from SS excesses those years. you can manipulate your interest however you want, but that all it is. manipulation. It doesn't change the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

The first misconception is that the US economy is anything like a household economy. That fallacy is present at least once in this thread.

---

Aparently some posters present in this thread have never heard of or don't know the definition of a hyperbole. :downspin:

Furthermore, some ppl are oblivious to the fact that we are under the worst economic situation since the great depression. We have never had such a large disparity in distribution of wealth, and are on a clear path to bankrupcy. The country has no industry and college graduates are doomed. Some ppl think just printing more money and bailing corporations out will miraculously take us out of this mess.

Probably these are the same ppl that thought real estate value was going to keep on going up, and up and up. :rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Dude, I have a lot of comments but you are so delusional that I don't feel like wasting my time on you. We can't continue to have a geometric expansion of debt with a relatively flat GDP. The ONLY choice will be to monetize the debt and you honestly don't think that will blow the dollar and create inflation? Like I said, delusional.

---

Why would the US need to monetize the debt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

If you want to hide

---

I'm here. And the thread you got schooled on is still there.

ElNono...

Are you going to hold on to the misconception that "off budget" items are included in "budget items" to balance it?

Now think about where you are going without the debt increase. You are now agreeing the the Clinton administration shifted their spending into the Bush administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

Aparently some posters present in this thread have never heard of or don't know the definition of a hyperbole. :downspin:

Furthermore, some ppl are oblivious to the fact that we are under the worst economic situation since the great depression. We have never had such a large disparity in distribution of wealth, and are on a clear path to bankrupcy. The country has no industry and college graduates are doomed. Some ppl think just printing more money and bailing corporations out will miraculously take us out of this mess.

Probably these are the same ppl that thought real estate value was going to keep on going up, and up and up. :rolleyes

---

So you agree that the government is nothing like a household economy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

So you agree that the government is nothing like a household economy?

---

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/t...rdFacepalm.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

ElNono...

Are you going to hold on to ...

---

I'm not holding on to anything. Even your Bush Jr accepted the fact the received a budget surplus. And the fact is that public debt did indeed go down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

:cry :cry I got schooled again :cry :cry

---

So we agree the government is nothing like a household economy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

So we agree the government is nothing like a household economy...

---

:rolleyes quoting someone with made up responses = very infantile. El Che is glad to have a serious discussion when you stop reaching for straws. Cheers. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

quoting someone with made up responses = very infantile. El Che is glad to have a serious discussion when you stop reaching for straws. Cheers. :toast

---

:lol this from the guy that post face palm responses instead of actually addressing the question.

The government can "create" and "destroy" money whenever it wishes and it doesn't have to "print" it either.

lol Ferraris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I'm not holding on to anything. Even your Bush Jr accepted the fact the received a budget surplus. And the fact is that public debt did indeed go down.

---

If the Clinton administration actually spend less money than revenues received, because the debt increased, he gave the debt to Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

:lol this from the guy that post face palm responses instead of actually addressing the question.

The government can "create" and "destroy" money whenever it wishes and it doesn't have to "print" it either.

lol Ferraris

---

I posted that because you are going on a tangent about the government being a household and not knowing the definition of hyperbole :lmao

stick to the topic. Do we have a revenue issue or spending or both?

try to stick to the topic and try not to go on silly tangents due to your misunderstanding of the english language. Just a piece of advice from your friend El Che. Cheers buddy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

LOL this is like saying my family's revenue problem is due to us buying the Ferrari last year. Who the fuck told you to buy a Ferrari?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

stick to the topic. Do we have a revenue issue or spending or both?

---

BTW, that silly statement that people say "US cannot go bankrupt"

Depends of what definition of bankrupt you mean. Do you mean bankrupt like failing to pay your bill or bankrupt like you will never be able to pay off your debts. Obviously we know US can just keep printing IOUs to their heart's content. SO they would never FAIL to pay a bill, but will they ever pay off their debt? Not if we keep this course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

If the Clinton administration actually spend less money than revenues received, because the debt increased, he gave the debt to Bush.

---

No. This was already thoroughly explained in the other thread and I'm not going to repeat myself. I'm simply going to point out you were wrong then, and you still wrong now. If you want to know why and revisit the conversation, go re-read that thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

.

---

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__...acepalm_lg.jpg

I sat down and spent a lot of time thinking about this the other day...someone pointed out that it's the healthcare spending thats going up, and they're right. In years past, we didn't have all these life extending technologies and things. Rather than spend millions treating someone for cancer or an organ transplant, they just died. Now days we are spending more and more money keeping people alive longer and longer. I don't think it's something that can easily be solved without throwing morals out the window and just saying fuck the sick and the old. They are what's driving up healthcare costs, but you can't just throw people under the bus at the same time. Tough dilemma, honestly. I think it would help if we as a country became a lot healthier. It's the smokers, drug addicts, alcoholics, and obese that are fucking us.

ElNono...

Argue all you want, but you are accepting the use of "off budget" numbers to balance a "budget."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mavs>spurs

I sat down and spent a lot of time thinking about this the other day...someone pointed out that it's the healthcare spending thats going up, and they're right. In years past, we didn't have all these life extending technologies and things. Rather than spend millions treating someone for cancer or an organ transplant, they just died. Now days we are spending more and more money keeping people alive longer and longer. I don't think it's something that can easily be solved without throwing morals out the window and just saying fuck the sick and the old. They are what's driving up healthcare costs, but you can't just throw people under the bus at the same time. Tough dilemma, honestly. I think it would help if we as a country became a lot healthier. It's the smokers, drug addicts, alcoholics, and obese that are fucking us.

---

lots of people have catastrophic health issues in the final years of life that have little to do with lifestyle and everything to do with being old and in the hospital

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

lots of people have catastrophic health issues in the final years of life that have little to do with lifestyle and everything to do with being old and in the hospital

---

and in years past, they just died. now days, we have more expensive and creative ways of prolonging the inevitable.

also, just as many people also have catastrophic health issues because of the choices they made for 70 years.

sure. didn't dispute that, just that poor health is elective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

lots of people have catastrophic health issues in the final years of life that have little to do with lifestyle and everything to do with being old and in the hospital

---

yup. The baby boomers are getting old, and them getting their 401ks wiped out does not help.

we're all gettin old

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

BTW, that silly statement that people say "US cannot go bankrupt"

Depends of what definition of bankrupt you mean. Do you mean bankrupt like failing to pay your bill or bankrupt like you will never be able to pay off your debts. Obviously we know US can just keep printing IOUs to their heart's content. SO they would never FAIL to pay a bill, but will they ever pay off their debt? Not if we keep this course.

---

The US debt is in US Dollars. All of it.

What we owe China? Sitting in the Fed in US Dollars.
What we owe France? Sitting in the Fed in US Dollars.

They can't pull that money out other than spending it in US goods or services (which are paid in US dollars).


lol Ferraris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

sure. didn't dispute that, just that poor health is elective.

---

old people are going to have health problems. i think we all understand that. but there are also a lot of people who are unhealthy because of lifestyle choices. my neighbor just passed away after a long bout with heart attacks and heart trouble. he was only in his 60s, and was a smoker all his life. he probably cost the state millions, and it was because he wouldn't stop smoking and eating unhealthy.

his heart troubles started in his early 40's btw.

:lol sitting in the Fed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mavs>spurs

I sat down and spent a lot of time thinking about this the other day...someone pointed out that it's the healthcare spending thats going up, and they're right. In years past, we didn't have all these life extending technologies and things. Rather than spend millions treating someone for cancer or an organ transplant, they just died. Now days we are spending more and more money keeping people alive longer and longer. I don't think it's something that can easily be solved without throwing morals out the window and just saying fuck the sick and the old. They are what's driving up healthcare costs, but you can't just throw people under the bus at the same time. Tough dilemma, honestly. I think it would help if we as a country became a lot healthier. It's the smokers, drug addicts, alcoholics, and obese that are fucking us.

---

I agree this needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, there's a lot of middle men, even for basic care, that shouldn't be there, IMO. I can understand the high cost of catastrophic health issues. But even getting an Xray and a fracture treated can run you into the thousands of dollars. It's crazy, and it never costs that much anywhere else in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mavs>spurs

I sat down and spent a lot of time thinking about this the other day...someone pointed out that it's the healthcare spending thats going up, and they're right. In years past, we didn't have all these life extending technologies and things. Rather than spend millions treating someone for cancer or an organ transplant, they just died. Now days we are spending more and more money keeping people alive longer and longer. I don't think it's something that can easily be solved without throwing morals out the window and just saying fuck the sick and the old. They are what's driving up healthcare costs, but you can't just throw people under the bus at the same time. Tough dilemma, honestly. I think it would help if we as a country became a lot healthier. It's the smokers, drug addicts, alcoholics, and obese that are fucking us.

---

It's the healthy fuckers that just won't die that are the REAL problem. I mean who wants to pass on all the fun stuff in life just so they can outlive their sinful friends and their money and just sit there with their wrinkly old man smelling bodies in their rocking chairs doing nothing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Argue all you want

---

I'm not arguing.

if this country were to become more health conscious, i still think it would help a lot. we are a morbidly obese, unhealthy country. cancer rates are skyrocketing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

:lol sitting in the Fed

---

Where do you think it is?

/facepalm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

It's the healthy fuckers that just won't die that are the REAL problem. I mean who wants to pass on all the fun stuff in life just so they can outlive their sinful friends and their money and just sit there with their wrinkly old man smelling bodies in their rocking chairs doing nothing?

---

that's crazy man, i don't fault people for being healthy. life should be appreciated, and if i'm 80 years old just spending time with my grandkids or fishing from time to time then i don't consider it sitting around doing nothing at all. life should never be taken for granted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mavs>spurs

that's crazy man, i don't fault people for being healthy. life should be appreciated, and if i'm 80 years old just spending time with my grandkids or fishing from time to time then i don't consider it sitting around doing nothing at all. life should never be taken for granted.

---

I see his argument as meaning that because people are living longer, Social Security and Medicare is being exhausted quicker and quicker. This would apply to any other subsidies the elderly may receive. It is a real concern. I'm not trying to tangent off this, but if we then have Obamacare requiring more insurance, it would keep the elderly alive and costing us money even more. Another net revenue shortfall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Where do you think it is?

/facepalm

---

How can something that does not exists be sitting anywhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I see his argument as meaning that because people are living longer, Social Security and Medicare is being exhausted quicker and quicker. This would apply to any other subsidies the elderly may receive. It is a real concern. I'm not trying to tangent off this, but if we then have Obamacare requiring more insurance, it would keep the elderly alive and costing us money even more. Another net revenue shortfall.

---

sorry but i want to keep my grandparents alive, and you and i will be saying the same thing when were that age. there is a solution to all this, and it's going to require a new leaner healthcare system, leaner government, and less wasteful spending across a variety of areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

How can something that does not exists be sitting anywhere?

---

Give hem a break. He's addicted to Hope-ium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mavs>spurs

sorry but i want to keep my grandparents alive, and you and i will be saying the same thing when were that age. there is a solution to all this, and it's going to require a new leaner healthcare system, leaner government, and less wasteful spending across a variety of areas.

---

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. It's reality. Now I would advocate not having government paid life extending procedures just because they are available. There comes a time when the individual or family needs to bear the cost, or let the person pass on. It should be the tax payers.