Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (16403)	4/8/2010 10:08:23 AM
From: Sdgla	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Again, conservatives stand between us and the ability to bring sanity to allocation of spending of public dollars. So the only political group taking a stand on excessive taxing and spending, in your opinion, is preventing the proper allocation of tax revenues ? Please tell me what your smoking. 700B a year on defense is obscene...just a 100B cut in it pays for the new health care bill for example. Again, conservatives stand between us and the ability to bring sanity to allocation of spending of public dollars The USA is the only force for good in this world and it is liberals, such as yourself, that are ignorant enough to want to weaken the US in the eyes of our allies when {in the face of global enemies} we need to be reassuring them, not confirming the decline that you and your lib friends so desire. The main function of the federal government is to protect the people of this country and support our global allies.... not supplement the health insurance needs for the population. Health care is available for everybody all ready. Health insurance is no more a right than home owners insurance.

To: Alighieri who wrote (16403)	4/8/2010 10:55:44 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

It all depends on the bias you assign to the balance between economic growth and social well being. Balance? That implies that they are in opposition. Economic growth feeds social well being, is necessary for social well being. They are not in opposition. They are not two things to be balanced.

To: Alighieri who wrote (16403)	4/8/2010 11:01:42 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

just a 100B cut in it pays for the new health care bill for example. No it doesn't the new health care bill will spend more than a 100billion a year, if not right away. And calling it "sanity to the allocation of spending public dollars", is rather questionable to say the least. A $700bil cut in it won't handle the future increases in entitlements. Obscene or not defense spending isn't driving our fiscal problems. Defense spending as a percentage of federal outlays was 46% in the year I was born (1968), 20 years later in 1988 it was 27.3% learner.org For 2010 its $663.7 billion out of $3.55 trillion en.wikipedia.org or about 18 and a half percent. Its almost certainly going to keep getting smaller. Also smaller in terms of percentage of GDP heritage.org None of that is much of an argument against cutting it. You see the level of spending as obscene, for people who see it that way, obviously it makes sense for them to want to cut it. But that doesn't get us much in terms of the fiscal problem. To solve it you have to go where the money is. The money isn't primarily in defense even now, let alone in the decades to come, the money is in entitlements, not defense, or taxes. America’s long run fiscal problem is spending growth, not taxes keithhennessey.com Entitlement-Driven Long-Term Budget Substantially Worse Than Previously Projected Published on November 30, 2005 by Brian Riedl Federal budget projections consistently warn that America faces a future of unaffordable entitlement spending, deep federal debt, and economic stagnation unless lawmakers modernize runaway entitlement programs. This paper shows that the long-term budget picture may even be substantially worse than previously projected. Specifically, a realistic budget projection shows that combined nominal Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid spending will double over the next decade. Adding in the costs of the war on terrorism, Hurricane Katrina, and other congressional spending priorities pushes total 2015 federal spending well past $4 trillion and the budget deficit to $873 billion-a level that could lead to harmful tax increases. The 2006-2050 budget picture is even more dismal. Because of the cost of fully funding Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, leading long-term budget projections have calculated that federal spending will increase from the current 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to a peacetime high of nearly 33 percent of GDP by 2050.[1] Yet even that may be a severe underestimate. These projections assume slower entitlement growth than estimated by the Social Security and Medicare trustees as well as substantial reductions in defense and other spending. Most critically, they assume that the resulting unprecedented increase in the national debt will not affect interest rates. More realistic assumptions show that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs will leap from 8.4 percent of GDP to 18.9 percent by 2050. Unless lawmakers reform these programs, they will have to fund their costs by: 1. Raising taxes every year until federal taxes are 57 percent ($11,000 per household, adjusted into today's economy)[2] above the current levels; 2. Eventually eliminating every other federal program, including spending on defense, education, anti-poverty programs, and veterans benefits, by 2045; or 3. Running massive budget deficits (the status quo option). This is the most expensive option because it would cause the federal debt to increase from the current level of 40 percent of GDP to 500 percent of GDP. Beginning in 2025, just a small interest rate response would push federal spending to 44 percent of GDP by 2040 and 73 percent by 2050-levels twice as high as previous projections... heritage.org Now obviously such projections can be very inaccurate, but the scale of the problem is such that even if they are off by a lot, the future entitlement growth is unsustainable. If the debt goes to 300% of the GDP instead of 500% you still have an enormous problem. 40+% of the GDP from federal spending would be horrible. 70+% would turn the US in to a slow growing, and eventually relatively poor socialist state.