Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If we spent the same price on health care per person as any one of the 35 countries with a longer life expectancy, the deficits would turn into surpluses in 5 years. However, we pay more than twice per person because Washington is owned by health insurance monopolies.
By protecting monopolies, the GOP is creating a structure of wasteful spending that benefits a narrow group of "administrative" parasites who sit between doctor and patient. We have the most inefficient delivery system of all the advanced nations. Our costs have exploded as our coverage decreases. The system has been rigged by special interests, which spend billions in lobbying.
Problem is: those same special interests pay into the Republican message machine. They have convinced a generation of conservatives that anything Government does to bust up the health care monopoly is "socialism".
If America restored market principals in health insurance; if they made it competitive by unwinding the pernicious influence of special interests, than the government and the middle class would not be bankrupt. There would be no need to spend so much on medicare. If middle class health costs were as low as other advanced nations, they would have more money to consume. If they had sufficient money to consume, we would not see such terrible job loss.
But the middle class can't consume, because their money is fed into a government protected monopoly. The Republican Voters on this board have been fooled into believing the current system is a free market. They don't understand what billions of dollars in lobbying buys. Our spending problems would be cut in half if the government didn't help corporations fleece the middle class.
If we spent the same price on health care per person as any one of the 35 countries with a longer life expectancy, the deficits would turn into surpluses in 5 years. However, we pay more than twice per person because Washington is owned by health insurance monopolies.
By protecting monopolies, the GOP is creating a structure of wasteful spending that benefits a narrow group of "administrative" parasites who sit between doctor and patient. We have the most inefficient delivery system of all the advanced nations. Our costs have exploded as our coverage decreases. The system has been rigged by special interests, which spend billions in lobbying.
Problem is: those same special interests pay into the Republican message machine. They have convinced a generation of conservatives that anything Government does to bust up the health care monopoly is "socialism".
If America restored market principals in health insurance; if they made it competitive by unwinding the pernicious influence of special interests, than the government and the middle class would not be bankrupt. There would be no need to spend so much on medicare. If middle class health costs were as low as other advanced nations, they would have more money to consume. If they had sufficient money to consume, we would not see such terrible job loss.
But the middle class can't consume, because their money is fed into a government protected monopoly. The Republican Voters on this board have been fooled into believing the current system is a free market. They don't understand what billions of dollars in lobbying buys. Our spending problems would be cut in half if the government didn't help corporations fleece the middle class.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOB0f3I1AXk]YouTube - Health Care[/ame]
It is actually the spending AND the lack of revenue. The 90's policies worked... well enough that Greenspan worried that our debt would go down too fast. that crazy Objectivist...
The 90's policies did work, and they would work now, but for one thing. We would still be facing a shortfall due to the massive increases in military spending, as well as large increases in Medicare and SS spending. Bringing back tax rates similar to the 90's along with restructuring SS and Medicare, and reducing military spending would get us back where we need to be, a balanced budget or close to one.
The problem with restructuring SS and Medicare, or any other social program is that the costs would not just go away. They would merely be shifted to other areas of the economy probably at higher costs.
The 90's policies did work, and they would work now, but for one thing. We would still be facing a shortfall due to the massive increases in military spending, as well as large increases in Medicare and SS spending. Bringing back tax rates similar to the 90's along with restructuring SS and Medicare, and reducing military spending would get us back where we need to be, a balanced budget or close to one.
The problem with restructuring SS and Medicare, or any other social program is that the costs would not just go away. They would merely be shifted to other areas of the economy probably at higher costs.
Here is the deal with SS and Medicare. When the programs were set up, no one imagined a life expectancy of 78 plus years. The programs were never intended to cover people for an average of 13 years. The fact is simple; people need to work longer. The retirement age must be raised so that full benefits can be paid out to everyone, although beginning at a higher age. Exceptions can be made for those who are truly disabled and unable to work past the age of 65, but everyone else needs to work for a few more years, or they can retire and fund their early retirement on their own money. We have got to understand that we just cannot support people for so many years without it having a detrimental impact on our society and economy as a whole.
The problem with restructuring SS and Medicare, or any other social program is that the costs would not just go away. They would merely be shifted to other areas of the economy probably at higher costs.
Here is the deal with SS and Medicare. When the programs were set up, no one imagined a life expectancy of 78 plus years. The programs were never intended to cover people for an average of 13 years. The fact is simple; people need to work longer. The retirement age must be raised so that full benefits can be paid out to everyone, although beginning at a higher age. Exceptions can be made for those who are truly disabled and unable to work past the age of 65, but everyone else needs to work for a few more years, or they can retire and fund their early retirement on their own money. We have got to understand that we just cannot support people for so many years without it having a detrimental impact on our society and economy as a whole.
That is true. When the age of 65 was selected that was the average life expectancy. Now many people can physically work into their 70s in less demanding work. On the flip side, after the age of 50 most people are unemployable in our present economy. Wal Mart only needs so many greeters.
Originally any extra money in the system was to be invested for future use. That did not happen. Any extra money was snagged to pay for wars and such.
How many times do we need to say this? We don't have a Tax Problem we're already taxed more then enough we have a Spending Problem. How is that so many don't understand this?
well if you don't want to take care of the people who need help, then yes we are spending to much. But what happens when you do this?
Yes we don't have to have so many people hired by the govt, but yes what happens when you have to stand in a line for two days to get what you want, or we have 1/3 the military we have now, what would happen to your wars. Yes we can cut back, but that also means going without or far less of things.
Yes we don't need to make sure businesses do the right things, we know they will, right.
Oil and coal companies will not pollute and will do the right things. And all those convicts that we have locked up, hell we could just let them go and they will behave.
The problem is we don't have enough people working and we don't collect enough tax revenue from those who are, that is a fact and it's all because of the greed of the rich and your not smart enough to see that idiots like you are a TOOL of the RICH.
Here is the deal with SS and Medicare. When the programs were set up, no one imagined a life expectancy of 78 plus years. The programs were never intended to cover people for an average of 13 years. The fact is simple; people need to work longer. The retirement age must be raised so that full benefits can be paid out to everyone, although beginning at a higher age. Exceptions can be made for those who are truly disabled and unable to work past the age of 65, but everyone else needs to work for a few more years, or they can retire and fund their early retirement on their own money. We have got to understand that we just cannot support people for so many years without it having a detrimental impact on our society and economy as a whole.
That is true. When the age of 65 was selected that was the average life expectancy. Now many people can physically work into their 70s in less demanding work. On the flip side, after the age of 50 most people are unemployable in our present economy. Wal Mart only needs so many greeters.
Originally any extra money in the system was to be invested for future use. That did not happen. Any extra money was snagged to pay for wars and such.
The funny thing about making people work longer is the idea that might make them live even longer. Retirement kills people with boredom, and I don't mean that as a joke. The other issue is that if you are married, all of a sudden you have to spend 24/7 with your life partner. While being married is great, not having to face each other 24/7 is a good thing for most, lol.
My father is turning 74 this year, and he still works a 40 hour week as a consultant. He travels and loves working. The reason he loves it is because it means he still matters. I also have a client in Colorado who is 95 years old and works six days per week. He has owned his business for nearly 50 years. He can no longer drive, but he is driven to work and home every day.
In conclusion. The only party worse than the Democrats when it comes to spending is the GOP. Whenever they get the presidency, they spend like drunken sailors. God helps us because they're coming back in 2012 -- and they're idiot base has never learned to question their spending. They are trapped in a FOX News bubble where the Reagan vs Carter debt, and the Bush vs Clinton debt is NEVER DISCUSSED.(help)
It is actually the spending AND the lack of revenue. The 90's policies worked... well enough that Greenspan worried that our debt would go down too fast. that crazy Objectivist...
How many times do we need to say this? We don't have a Tax Problem we're already taxed more then enough we have a Spending Problem. How is that so many don't understand this?
well if you don't want to take care of the people who need help, then yes we are spending to much. But what happens when you do this?
Yes we don't have to have so many people hired by the govt, but yes what happens when you have to stand in a line for two days to get what you want, or we have 1/3 the military we have now, what would happen to your wars. Yes we can cut back, but that also means going without or far less of things.
Yes we don't need to make sure businesses do the right things, we know they will, right.
Oil and coal companies will not pollute and will do the right things. And all those convicts that we have locked up, hell we could just let them go and they will behave.
The problem is we don't have enough people working and we don't collect enough tax revenue from those who are, that is a fact and it's all because of the greed of the rich and your not smart enough to see that idiots like you are a TOOL of the RICH.
. I have seen people saying they cant work but do that same thing in their home life what they supposedly cant do at work!!! Mothers who wont get off welfare because it pays more then min wage. They have more babies just so they can get more then collect earn income credits too!!!!! Unemployment benefits for 99 months is outrageous who in their right mind will look for a job when they can sit on their butt and collect money for nothing. I am not saying everyone does this but a lot do. They need to raise the age for SSI to 70 people are living longer these days. Pelosi said that food stamps will strengthen our economy ReALLY. she is so out of touch. It wont let me post the url until I made 15 post but this is part of what she saidLondoner, good post.
We did not have real prosperity in the Clinton years. Newfound wealth in the investor class created investment bubbles. Credit was issued in lieu of wages to try to keep these bubbles inflated.
Of course that is a short sighted policy.
Where are these black and white facts?Why?
No need. You've been bitch-slapped and marginalized. Come back when you've got the facts on your side.
The facts are there in black and white. No bitch-slapping happening there.
In conclusion. The only party worse than the Democrats when it comes to spending is the GOP. Whenever they get the presidency, they spend like drunken sailors. God helps us because they're coming back in 2012 -- and they're idiot base has never learned to question their spending. They are trapped in a FOX News bubble where the Reagan vs Carter debt, and the Bush vs Clinton debt is NEVER DISCUSSED.(help)
Unfortunately for you the numbers don't bear this out. While it is true that Bush and his administration grew the govt and spent trillions, Obama and the dems continued this pattern to an even greater degree. Neither side has a lock on fiscal responsibility so while we argue Dems v Repubs, they both have proven to be pretty bad.
The latest budget cuts are not even 1% of the deficit....both parties agreed on this "spending reduction".
In case you have not noticed, everyone (that wants to see this country survive) is questioning spending. Marginalizing one party in favor of the other is to be completely ignorant of the facts.
The 90's policies did work, and they would work now, but for one thing. We would still be facing a shortfall due to the massive increases in military spending, as well as large increases in Medicare and SS spending. Bringing back tax rates similar to the 90's along with restructuring SS and Medicare, and reducing military spending would get us back where we need to be, a balanced budget or close to one.
The problem with restructuring SS and Medicare, or any other social program is that the costs would not just go away. They would merely be shifted to other areas of the economy probably at higher costs.
Here is the deal with SS and Medicare. When the programs were set up, no one imagined a life expectancy of 78 plus years. The programs were never intended to cover people for an average of 13 years. The fact is simple; people need to work longer. The retirement age must be raised so that full benefits can be paid out to everyone, although beginning at a higher age. Exceptions can be made for those who are truly disabled and unable to work past the age of 65, but everyone else needs to work for a few more years, or they can retire and fund their early retirement on their own money. We have got to understand that we just cannot support people for so many years without it having a detrimental impact on our society and economy as a whole.
In conclusion. The only party worse than the Democrats when it comes to spending is the GOP. Whenever they get the presidency, they spend like drunken sailors. God helps us because they're coming back in 2012 -- and they're idiot base has never learned to question their spending. They are trapped in a FOX News bubble where the Reagan vs Carter debt, and the Bush vs Clinton debt is NEVER DISCUSSED.(help)
Unfortunately for you the numbers don't bear this out. While it is true that Bush and his administration grew the govt and spent trillions, Obama and the dems continued this pattern to an even greater degree. Neither side has a lock on fiscal responsibility so while we argue Dems v Repubs, they both have proven to be pretty bad.
The latest budget cuts are not even 1% of the deficit....both parties agreed on this "spending reduction".
In case you have not noticed, everyone (that wants to see this country survive) is questioning spending. Marginalizing one party in favor of the other is to be completely ignorant of the facts.
Yep. Both parties have steadily grown the government, increased entitlements, and been fiscally irresponsible. The ONLY reason I remain registered GOP is because the GOP does it somewhat more slowly than the Democrats generally do, and I want to be able to vote in our State's primary elections.
But as long as folks look for somebody to demonize and accuse and attack on a partisanship basis, but refuse to seriously look at any issue on its own merits , we will continue to elect irresponsible people to Congress and little or nothing will be done to correct anything.
The stock market is often at odds with Main Street. It is a leading indicator of the economy, reflecting what investors believe will be the state of the economy in 12 to 18 months.No, if nothing is done, we don't have a depression. Inflation will erode the buying power of the dollar which could lead to hyperinflation. But don't be so pessimistic. We have a 15 trillion dollar debt but we also have a 15 trillion dollar economy. The deficit needs to to be brought down to the 1990's level, say 300 billion which is less than GDP growth. The Deficit Reduction Committee recommendation, the House's Paul Ryan plan, and I'm sure Obama's plan, TBA will do the deed. Remember the deficit can be reduced by spending cuts, which is happening, revenue increases due to the recover which is projected to last through at least 2014, and possible tax increase.They'll get it. Both sides will. When the spending causes an economic collapse. A depression so severe that starvation is an immediate threat to us all. Not the just Dems fault, not just the Repubs fault, but both of them. They will never stop spending.
The dollar will fail and that will put an end to it. I don't think the anything we can do to stop it. I think it is a done deal. It's too late.
We have survived 2 world worlds, the cold war, a civil war, the great depression, and a defect at end WWII that was 100% of GDP, which is 10 times worst than our current deficit. I think any one selling America short will regret it.
I don't like to be pessimistic, But I see a stock market that's disconnected from main street. Other countries wanting to cease using the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. The Fed using 'quantitative easing' at an alarming rate. it is hard to be an optimist.
I do not see a will in Washington, Democrat or Republican, to make serious cuts. Everyone acts as if a recovery is assured. I don't think we are out of the woods yet. hyperinflation won't lead to a depression? Not necessarily, but it could.
Well, silver up another 24 cents. What the hell
Unfortunately for you the numbers don't bear this out. While it is true that Bush and his administration grew the govt and spent trillions, Obama and the dems continued this pattern to an even greater degree. Neither side has a lock on fiscal responsibility so while we argue Dems v Repubs, they both have proven to be pretty bad.
The latest budget cuts are not even 1% of the deficit....both parties agreed on this "spending reduction".
In case you have not noticed, everyone (that wants to see this country survive) is questioning spending. Marginalizing one party in favor of the other is to be completely ignorant of the facts.
Yep. Both parties have steadily grown the government, increased entitlements, and been fiscally irresponsible. The ONLY reason I remain registered GOP is because the GOP does it somewhat more slowly than the Democrats generally do, and I want to be able to vote in our State's primary elections.
But as long as folks look for somebody to demonize and accuse and attack on a partisanship basis, but refuse to seriously look at any issue on its own merits , we will continue to elect irresponsible people to Congress and little or nothing will be done to correct anything.
OK but the Dems spend money that moves back through the economy. The Repubs spend money that leaves the economy.
That is true. When the age of 65 was selected that was the average life expectancy. Now many people can physically work into their 70s in less demanding work. On the flip side, after the age of 50 most people are unemployable in our present economy. Wal Mart only needs so many greeters.
Originally any extra money in the system was to be invested for future use. That did not happen. Any extra money was snagged to pay for wars and such.
The funny thing about making people work longer is the idea that might make them live even longer. Retirement kills people with boredom, and I don't mean that as a joke. The other issue is that if you are married, all of a sudden you have to spend 24/7 with your life partner. While being married is great, not having to face each other 24/7 is a good thing for most, lol.
My father is turning 74 this year, and he still works a 40 hour week as a consultant. He travels and loves working. The reason he loves it is because it means he still matters. I also have a client in Colorado who is 95 years old and works six days per week. He has owned his business for nearly 50 years. He can no longer drive, but he is driven to work and home every day.
There are many doctors and lawyers working into their 70s and 80s. Roofers not so much.
