At last the 'REAL DEBATE' begins in earnest!

[GenSeneca]

Stopping the out of control growth of government and its debt may be possible, but it isn't going to be easy. It will have to be done, but insisting on a strict interpretation of the Constitution is never going to happen.

Does anyone else see the irony?

On the one hand, you say we need to stop governments out of control growth and resultant debt... On the other hand, you don't think government be should held to its Constitutional limits... limits which were specifically designed to prevent out of control growth of government and its resultant debt.

I think you represent a pretty small minority, which nevertheless, has rights.

You are right, I do represent the interests of a small minority, the individual, the smallest of all minorities. And you are also wrong, the group of individuals who also support capitalism, limited government, minimal taxes, fiscal responsibility, respect for individual rights and adherence to the constitution, make up a very large portion of the population... and we are probably a majority here on the forum.

How do you think your rights could be protected?

First, they aren't just "my" rights, they are individual rights, rights that belong to every individual, rights which our government was specifically created to protect. The best way to protect our individual rights is by eliminating laws that violate them.... and there are a lot of them.

Stopping a run on the banks is pretty pragmatic, don't you think?

The FDIC went from a surplus to a 4 trillion dollar deficit in order to secure those funds and prevent a run on the banks. You think that's pragmatic. Ergo, you think the FDIC deficit is pragmatic so long as it stopped a run on the banks.

The actual 12 or so trillion we have is bad enough without exaggeration,

Who's exaggerating? We have 12 trillion due right now, there's another 92 trillion or so in unfunded debt obligations, the first of which will be coming due starting around 2010/2012.

You talked about our debt being like a Mastercard... that's a good analogy. We rack up debt and we have to make payments immediately. Currently, we are making interest only payments while continuing to rack up debt.

Now you've likely heard about "buy now pay later" financing, where you can buy something on credit, with no money down, and no payments and no interest for a year. Well, that's a good analogy for our unfunded debt obligations.

When those bills start coming in, it will dwarf the 12 trillion we currently owe, the same 12 trillion that we have to make interest only payments on because we can't afford to pay down the principle.

Do you think that stopping spending of SS funds for welfare is going to result in people dying in the streets?

First off, you were the one saying I must want people dying in the streets because I want to end the welfare state. Then you stated, "Let's stop using the funds for welfare for people who haven't paid in." Which is why I made my comment about you now wanting people to die in the streets... what are they going to do when you cut off their welfare?

If so, what do you think will happen when, as you say, SS inevitably fails?

Then we're all screwed, current and future generations alike. There will likely be a revolution that may, or may not, be preceded by another civil war.

Maybe if we reform it now, we can avoid people starving.

The longer we wait, the greater the pain.

There is no reason to believe that.

There's no reason to believe government will "fix" the problem of skyrocketing healthcare.

I'm afraid you're right about that, unless we address the situation now. It is going to require higher taxes and budget cuts, neither of which is going to be popular.

We need tax cuts, not higher taxes. Higher taxes will only serve to stifle economic activity. As for budget cuts... Everyone thinks their cow is sacred and above cuts. We have a tough road ahead.

 

[PLC1]

Does anyone else see the irony?

On the one hand, you say we need to stop governments out of control growth and resultant debt... On the other hand, you don't think government be should held to its Constitutional limits... limits which were specifically designed to prevent out of control growth of government and its resultant debt.

There is a good deal less irony in what I've actually been saying than in your interpretation of what I've been saying.

You are right, I do represent the interests of a small minority, the individual, the smallest of all minorities. And you are also wrong, the group of individuals who also support capitalism, limited government, minimal taxes, fiscal responsibility, respect for individual rights and adherence to the constitution, make up a very large portion of the population... and we are probably a majority here on the forum.

It think you represent a small minority in that there very few who share your political philosophy, at least to the degree you have been expressing it. Quite a few support some of what you say, myself included, but your views are pretty much on the end of the bell curve.

Don't you think?

First, they aren't just "my" rights, they are individual rights, rights that belong to every individual, rights which our government was specifically created to protect. The best way to protect our individual rights is by eliminating laws that violate them.... and there are a lot of them.

There are some, like the Patriot Act and asset forfeiture laws.

The FDIC went from a surplus to a 4 trillion dollar deficit in order to secure those funds and prevent a run on the banks. You think that's pragmatic. Ergo, you think the FDIC deficit is pragmatic so long as it stopped a run on the banks.

Four trillion? Where do you get your figures?

Here are some real figures:

For the first time since the early 1990’s, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s insurance fund to protect consumers’ deposits has a negative balance. The fund had a balance of $8.2 billion in the red for the third quarter, which was an $18.6 billion decline from the end of June.

8.2 billion is 1/500 of the figure you gave. Surely, you can see why the FDIC has overspent its budget, can't you?

Do you seriously believe that the runs on the banks that occurred during the last great depression were less destructive than the FDIC going in the red?

It did its job. That is what really counts.

You talked about our debt being like a Mastercard... that's a good analogy. We rack up debt and we have to make payments immediately. Currently, we are making interest only payments while continuing to rack up debt.

Yes, that's what is happening currently. It has been happening for the past nine years in fact, and has happened off and on for much longer than that.

Now you've likely heard about "buy now pay later" financing, where you can buy something on credit, with no money down, and no payments and no interest for a year. Well, that's a good analogy for our unfunded debt obligations.

Yes, it is.

When those bills start coming in, it will dwarf the 12 trillion we currently owe, the same 12 trillion that we have to make interest only payments on because we can't afford to pay down the principle.

Then, you're projecting some future debt. If it ever reaches that point, what do you think will happen?

First off, you were the one saying I must want people dying in the streets because I want to end the welfare state. Then you stated, "Let's stop using the funds for welfare for people who haven't paid in." Which is why I made my comment about you now wanting people to die in the streets... what are they going to do when you cut off their welfare?

No, you were saying that you were willing to deny people medical care and just let them die if they couldn't pay. That is a position that very few are willing to take, which leaves us paying one way or another. If your philosophy were to become policy, then runaway medical costs would probably stop.

What I said was that SS funds should not be used for welfare.

How do we end the welfare state? Your scenario of people dying in the streets if we just suddenly cut it off is not realistic. People breaking into your house and mine to get what they need to feed their families is much more likely.

Yes, the welfare state has to end, but ending it is no easy matter.

Then we're all screwed, current and future generations alike. There will likely be a revolution that may, or may not, be preceded by another civil war.

Cant we head it off before it gets to that point? I wonder.

I'll probably be in my grave by then, but you probably won't.

The longer we wait, the greater the pain.

Yes, that's so.

There's no reason to believe government will "fix" the problem of skyrocketing healthcare.

other than the facts that you want to dispute by saying the figures are not real:

Every other nation in the world has universal health care in one form or another, and

Every other nation in the world pays less than we do.

But, whether or not our government will be able to rise above partisan gamesmanship and pass meaningful reforms remains to be seen. So far, it doesn't look good.

We need tax cuts, not higher taxes. Higher taxes will only serve to stifle economic activity. As for budget cuts... Everyone thinks their cow is sacred and above cuts. We have a tough road ahead.

Indeed, we do.

 

[GenSeneca]

It think you represent a small minority in that there very few who share your political philosophy, at least to the degree you have been expressing it.

You say I'm misinterpreting your philosophical outlook but do you make any allowance for misinterpretations on your part concerning mine?

your views are pretty much on the end of the bell curve. Don't you think?

Bell curve? If on one end of the spectrum is tyranny and the other liberty, mine is solidly on the side of liberty. Clearly you are closer to my side than tyranny but you're willing to accept a certain level of tyranny and therefore tread where I wouldn't go, into the "gray" area of so called "moderates".

There are some, like the Patriot Act and asset forfeiture laws.

I could write an entire reply on the laws that restrict, or deny, individual rights, but I will not... I will attempt to stay on topic.

Four trillion? Where do you get your figures?

I cited the FDIC's Cheif Financial Officers report to the board, even linked to it.

I was wrong to say the FDIC had a 4 trillion dollar deficit, I should have been more specific and stated that the FDIC is responsible for securitizing 4 trillion in financial assets, basically 4 trillion worth of IOU's that can be cashed in during emergencies.

8.2 billion is 1/500 of the figure you gave.

Why did you deny it? You have just confirmed my conclusion that you think deficit spending is pragmatic so long as it serves its purpose. A negative balance of 8.2 billion is a deficit, you think the FDIC served its purpose, therefore deficits are pragmatic so long as they serve a purpose.

Surely, you can see why the FDIC has overspent its budget, can't you?

The FDIC is responsible for securitizing 4.3 trillion dollars worth of financial assets. At its peak, the FDIC fund had $52 billion covering $4.3 trillion, its now at minus $8.2 billion. So yes, its clear why they overspent, they were overleveraged by a ratio of almost 100 to 1.... a practice that would result in the SEC shutting down a private institution for such activity. Now the FDIC is $8.2 trillion in the hole, which makes that leveraging ratio even greater.

Do you seriously believe that the runs on the banks that occurred during the last great depression were less destructive than the FDIC going in the red?

Yes, I would have preferred no bailouts. Yes such a move would have been painful but I'd rather we face the pain of having the system reset now and get it fixed than push the problem down the road, and onto future generations, by propping up a still broken system with deficit spending.

It did its job. That is what really counts.

Right. It did its job by running up a deficit, therefore its pragmatic to run up debts so long as you get the job done, because the ends justify the means.

Then, you're projecting some future debt. If it ever reaches that point, what do you think will happen?

If it ever reaches that point? We're not talking about decades from now, but just a couple of years before the first of the IOU's start getting cashed, that's if you trust the CBO. What I know will happen is a change in the system so that SS becomes a massive program for the redistribution of wealth, because that will be seen as the pragmatic solution.

No, you were saying that you were willing to deny people medical care and just let them die if they couldn't pay.

No, I said that if we took a long term approach to the problem, we wouldn't have to deny people care because healthcare would be as affordable and accessible as food and clothing.

That is a position that very few are willing to take, which leaves us paying one way or another.

What of the people you want to kick off welfare... will we not have to pay for them one way or the other as well?

If your philosophy were to become policy, then runaway medical costs would probably stop.

Capitalism works every time its tried.

What I said was that SS funds should not be used for welfare.

But you have accepted the Collectivist morality, you think its your obligation to pay for it one way or the other.

How do we end the welfare state?

As slowly and as methodically as we built it. That is the only way to prevent the kind of scenario you laid out about wide spread panic, theft, and violence.

Yes, the welfare state has to end, but ending it is no easy matter.

Mandatory annual reductions of 2% for all programs until its phased out.

Every other nation in the world has universal health care in one form or another, and Every other nation in the world pays less than we do.

Talk about tired mantras of empty rhetoric...

I mentioned MRI's, offered my sources, but you don't trust the numbers so you dismissed them. Let me offer another explanation as to why our costs are higher:

According to Canda's Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the average waiting period for an MRI in Ontario is... 115 days. Average wait time in the US for an MRI... There isn't one. (note the waiting times for other procedures on that report as well)

The result? Our costs, just for MRI's, over the year are higher than in Canada because their waiting period stretches out the costs over a longer period of time. We put more people through the system in a year (per capita) than Canada, costs reflect this reality.

How many millions, or billions, do you suppose we could shave off our healthcare expenditures (% of GDP spent on HC) by simply imposing a mandatory waiting period of 115 for an MRI?

 

[PLC1]

I mentioned MRI's, offered my sources, but you don't trust the numbers so you dismissed them. Let me offer another explanation as to why our costs are higher:

I think this discussion is going around in circles now, but I'd like to respond to the above.

I did not dismiss your figures about MRIs. The numbers you posted indicated that the US, between the private and public sectors no doubt, has spent approximately $25 trillion, a figure that is double the current national debt, on enough MRI machines to test every American about once a week.

Far from dismissing your figures, what I did was question the wisdom of spending so much on just one thing. Assuming that the numbers you posted are correct, and there is no reason not to make such an assumption, you have put your finger on one reason why health care is rapidly getting too expensive even for the middle class. If Canada has fewer MRIs, and spends about 2/3 as much as we do, perhaps purchasing unnecessary equipment might be one reason.

I think you have found one of probably many items that need to be looked at when health care reform is debated.

If, that is, it is ever rationally debated.