Hypocrisy?

[Bigblue1]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/07/obama-debt-ceiling-impasse-threatens-social-security-veterans-medicaid-checks-.html

[lxskllr]

There's so many little things that could be done to save money. They might not be big dollar items, but it adds up after awhile. Get rid of the penny, make plastic bills, stop invading other countries...

[RobsanX]

Darwin and Blue, I get enough right wing talking points from the political attack ads on TV.

Darwin, taxing anyone at 100% will yield zero revenue from that person. That's equivalent to slavery.

Blue, cutting congressional pay would be like you or I finding a penny in the street. I did hear a good idea on NPR yesterday, take away their reserved prime parking spots at the Capitol. Something like that would actually get under their skin!

Sgreger, thank you for keeping the discussion honest.

[Darwin]

Whether anyone considers it a "talking point" or not the fact remains, regardless of ideological bent, that no increase in tax rates or prodigies of economic growth will ultimately address this situation since the numbers are so stupefyingly large. The political will to do anything serious regarding real debt/spending reduction is just not there because the country at large will simply not tolerate significant reductions in the all-devouring entitlement situation. We do not want even minor entitlement reductions, not remotely enough of us anyway and I'm not dis-including myself, so my feeling is that we are simply going to have to crash and burn before we have any hope of coming out on the other side of fiscal sanity. Even if politicians suddenly, and uncharacteristically, decided to become suicidally fiscally responsible the situation now appears to have simply bypassed their abilities to do anything meaningful because the population's sense of entitlement to government largesse always seems to increase and never shrink. Thus have we created and continue to maintain this 15 trillion dollar Gordian Knot and the cutting of it will be an ugly business indeed.

[internope]

Whether anyone considers it a "talking point" or not the fact remains, regardless of ideological bent, that no increase in tax rates or prodigies of economic growth will ultimately address this situation since the numbers are so stupefyingly large. The political will to do anything serious regarding real debt/spending reduction is just not there because the country at large will simply not tolerate significant reductions in the all-devouring entitlement situation. We do not want even minor entitlement reductions, not remotely enough of us anyway and I'm not dis-including myself, so my feeling is that we are simply going to have to crash and burn before we have any hope of coming out on the other side of fiscal sanity. Even if politicians suddenly, and uncharacteristically, decided to become suicidally fiscally responsible the situation now appears to have simply bypassed their abilities to do anything meaningful because the population's sense of entitlement to government largesse always seems to increase and never shrink. Thus have we created and continue to maintain this 15 trillion dollar Gordian Knot and the cutting of it will be an ugly business indeed.

Actually, the Republican Tea Party talking points on the national debt are complete hogwash.

Here are a few choice quotes from the traditionally conservative Economist newpaper:

"America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP"

"The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical."

"This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises."

The full article: http://www.economist.com/node/189286...%2Fshameonthem

Here a couple more editorials along the same lines from the another traditional right wing source, the news magazine US News.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...n-debt-ceiling

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...ceiling-crisis

[Bigblue1]

Whether anyone considers it a "talking point" or not the fact remains, regardless of ideological bent, that no increase in tax rates or prodigies of economic growth will ultimately address this situation since the numbers are so stupefyingly large. The political will to do anything serious regarding real debt/spending reduction is just not there because the country at large will simply not tolerate significant reductions in the all-devouring entitlement situation. We do not want even minor entitlement reductions, not remotely enough of us anyway and I'm not dis-including myself, so my feeling is that we are simply going to have to crash and burn before we have any hope of coming out on the other side of fiscal sanity. Even if politicians suddenly, and uncharacteristically, decided to become suicidally fiscally responsible the situation now appears to have simply bypassed their abilities to do anything meaningful because the population's sense of entitlement to government largesse always seems to increase and never shrink. Thus have we created and continue to maintain this 15 trillion dollar Gordian Knot and the cutting of it will be an ugly business indeed.

In other words we've crossed the Rubicon, there is no going back......

[sgreger1]

Ummm no...

Lol, really though, I was very against the idea but after looking at everything objectively I feel that there is serious evidence for what i'm saying. Countries that have the infrastructure for a national health care system spend as much as (or less than) we do, but are able to provide coverage to everyone for a much cheaper rate (and almost always results in a healtheir populace). This isn't even the imporant part, the point is that businesses often spend a lot of capitol that could be used elsewhere to cover their workers insurance premiums. If we reduce that cost than we increase the amount of available capitol, all while providing everyone with insurance.


We don't have to even socialize it necessarily, look at what Japan has done.

• Eighty percent of Japan's hospitals are privately owned — more than in the United States — and almost every doctor's office is a private business.
• It has the longest healthy life expectancy on Earth and spends half as much on health care as the United States.
• Everyone in Japan is required to get a health insurance policy, either at work or through a community-based insurer. The government picks up the tab for those who are too poor.
• NO RATIONING: The Japanese visit a doctor nearly 14 times a year, more than four times as often as Americans. They can choose any primary care physician or specialist they want, and surveys show they are almost always seen on the day they want.

There are many reasons why it may not work as well here as it does in places like Japan, but I still think it would be a vast improvement over our current system. And like any healthcare debate I would add that America will always cost more because of our diet/lifestyle, we are simply less healthier as a culture and therefore cost more to keep alive. That extra cost will echo into any system we choose.

[GoVegan]

Good luck with your Japanese plan!

TOKYO -- Half a world away from the U.S. health-care debate, Japan has a system that costs half as much and often achieves better medical outcomes than its American counterpart. It does so by banning insurance company profits, limiting doctor fees and accepting shortcomings in care that many well-insured Americans would find intolerable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2009102805439

Can you just see Congress, especially the Republicans, banning insurance company profits, limiting doctor fee's and accepting shortcomings? Japan also makes it mandatory for you to have health insurance which is a sticking point with a lot of people in Obama's plan. Until we decide to make health care a right and limit costs across the board, we will never get anywhere. We were on the right track with our health care plan until the conservatives insisted that we work with the insurance companies rather than a single payer or government run system. Anything dominated by insurance is going to be expensive from auto body repair to broken ankles.

Here is a great article if you are really serious about lowering health care costs in a cheap and effective manner.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,401722,00.html

[sgreger1]

Good luck with your Japanese plan!

TOKYO -- Half a world away from the U.S. health-care debate, Japan has a system that costs half as much and often achieves better medical outcomes than its American counterpart. It does so by banning insurance company profits, limiting doctor fees and accepting shortcomings in care that many well-insured Americans would find intolerable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2009102805439

Can you just see Congress, especially the Republicans, banning insurance company profits, limiting doctor fee's and accepting shortcomings? Japan also makes it mandatory for you to have health insurance which is a sticking point with a lot of people in Obama's plan. Until we decide to make health care a right and limit costs across the board, we will never get anywhere. We were on the right track with our health care plan until the conservatives insisted that we work with the insurance companies rather than a single payer or government run system. Anything dominated by insurance is going to be expensive from auto body repair to broken ankles.

Here is a great article if you are really serious about lowering health care costs in a cheap and effective manner.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,401722,00.html

Yah it's definately not politically feasable yet here in the US, but really we need to get this growing cost under control. I would prefer a system wherein doctors get paid more than the insuranec companies, but we're not quite there yet.

The swedes have a good system, so does iceland if I recall. The idea being to keep it in private hands but then regulate the shit out of the private industries to make sure they provide a product that works for everyone. You get the efficiency of private enterprise and the social benefits of a top-down managed program. My only gripe with the idea of socialized healthcare currently is that I don't think our government would run it efficiently. Heavily regulated private enterprise is probably the best way to do that for Americans.