saveliberty
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,756
- 10,843
- 2,030
Reduced to vague generalizations and hope.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unsustainable when, in 30 years? I don't think it's time to worry about that.
Obama offered Republicans $2 of cuts for each dollar of tax increase. Thank God they were stupid enough to refuse that offer.
You don't think it is time to worry about that? You would rather wait until it is to late to do anything and start worrying about things then? Do you think it will magically fix itself if we ignore it?
You don't know what might happen in 30 years, so yes, it might fix itself. In any case, we should at least wait until the economy is back on track.
In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts - The Washington PostAs for the bullshit spending cut for tax increase, that is bullshit.
You don't think it is time to worry about that? You would rather wait until it is to late to do anything and start worrying about things then? Do you think it will magically fix itself if we ignore it?
You don't know what might happen in 30 years, so yes, it might fix itself. In any case, we should at least wait until the economy is back on track.
In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts - The Washington PostAs for the bullshit spending cut for tax increase, that is bullshit.
In order for it to fix itself the current trend in people having fewer children would have to reverse and the US has enough young people working to support the old people who expect to get paid to sit around all day.
Apparently you think that planning to spend $100 more than you did last year, then saying you will only spend $98 dollars more means you are spending $2 less
You don't know what might happen in 30 years, so yes, it might fix itself. In any case, we should at least wait until the economy is back on track.
In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts - The Washington Post
In order for it to fix itself the current trend in people having fewer children would have to reverse and the US has enough young people working to support the old people who expect to get paid to sit around all day.
Or we discover a cheap way to cure cancer through a gene therapy and it will save Medicare trillions.
You are saying that Obama offered 4 trillions cuts in his plan to spend 200 trillions more?Apparently you think that planning to spend $100 more than you did last year, then saying you will only spend $98 dollars more means you are spending $2 less
Another right wing loon?
Nope.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, discusses President Obama's budget proposal.
Cleaver says, This budget is a nervous breakdown on paper. And its not just President Obama. I think he's put together a document that addresses education. We need to do it. Community colleges need to be upgraded. We got to have training for real jobs. We've got a lot of jobs that are going unfilled because we don't have the technology in the heads of graduating college students to deal with them."
Rep. Cleaver Budget a 'nervous breakdown on paper' CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs
In order for it to fix itself the current trend in people having fewer children would have to reverse and the US has enough young people working to support the old people who expect to get paid to sit around all day.
Or we discover a cheap way to cure cancer through a gene therapy and it will save Medicare trillions.
You are saying that Obama offered 4 trillions cuts in his plan to spend 200 trillions more?Apparently you think that planning to spend $100 more than you did last year, then saying you will only spend $98 dollars more means you are spending $2 less
Curing cancer will not wipe out diabetes, Alzheimer's, high blood pressure, Parkinson's, osteoporosis, or high blood pressure. By the way, the problem is not that people die of cancer
it is that they are living longer now than they were when we first set these programs up, and the demographics are shifting from us having more people working than we do collecting benefits to the other way.
Did I say that? I posted a link to his budget, and the fact that he plans to spend $47 trillion over 10 years, while cutting that spending by $2 trillion.
The problem is that current treatment, although inefficient, is very expensive. That is why Medicare costs are rising fast. A cheap cure will save us a lot, and we can learn to treat other conditions too.
If they will live longer and be healthy, they will postpone the retirement. The eligibility age could be raised as well.
ou said "planning to spend $100 more than you did last year, then saying you will only spend $98 dollars more means you are spending $2 less than you did last year".
Obama does not plan to spend 47 trillion more. That was all we planned to spend. And that is why I don't understand what is your problem with that number -- you think Obama should have eliminate the whole 47 trillion and leave the US w/o the federal government?
The problem is that current treatment, although inefficient, is very expensive. That is why Medicare costs are rising fast. A cheap cure will save us a lot, and we can learn to treat other conditions too.
Let me try this again, the expensive treatment of cancer is not what is driving the entitlement programs into bankruptcy
If they will live longer and be healthy, they will postpone the retirement. The eligibility age could be raised as well.
Why should they postpone their retirement? doesn't it make more sense for someone who is 65 who has worked his whole life, and has the added benefit of another 20 years of health ahead of him to finally take the time to go out and see the world?
If Congress is going to raise the eligibility age for retirement benefits it needs to do it now, not in 30 years when everyone is trying to retire.
Of course, that is what I said way back at the beginning of this exercise in futility, and you said it could wait until these people retire to suddenly find out they have to wait another 20 years to get benefits. Take a look at what is happening in Greece if you want to see how that will work out.
ou said "planning to spend $100 more than you did last year, then saying you will only spend $98 dollars more means you are spending $2 less than you did last year".
No, I said that is what politicians call a spending cut. A spending cut is when you actually spend less, not when you spend less than you planned.
Obama does not plan to spend 47 trillion more. That was all we planned to spend. And that is why I don't understand what is your problem with that number -- you think Obama should have eliminate the whole 47 trillion and leave the US w/o the federal government?
The projected $47 trillion in spending is not what I intend to spend, I don't have anywhere near that kind of money. When Bush was in office just 4 years ago spending was projected to be less than $2 trillion a year, Obama wants to more than double that and sustain spending at $4.7 trillion a year.
I used to think Bush was profligate
Trust me on this, it does not take $47 trillion to run the government. It doesn't even take $10 trillion, and I can use Obama's numbers to prove that.
You failed to realize that when people live longer - no matter what the cause - they use MORE in medical care. If cancer goes away tomorrow, Medicare costs will INCREASE. That is just a fact of life. The longer you live, the more you use in medical costs. You will simply dies 10 years later of some other overly expensive thing. Even old age is an incredibly expensive way to die.The problem is that current treatment, although inefficient, is very expensive. That is why Medicare costs are rising fast. A cheap cure will save us a lot, and we can learn to treat other conditions too.
Let me try this again, the expensive treatment of cancer is not what is driving the entitlement programs into bankruptcy
I was talking about savings in Medicare, not in SS. And the former costs more than the latter.
You failed to realize that when people live longer - no matter what the cause - they use MORE in medical care. If cancer goes away tomorrow, Medicare costs will INCREASE. That is just a fact of life.Let me try this again, the expensive treatment of cancer is not what is driving the entitlement programs into bankruptcy
I was talking about savings in Medicare, not in SS. And the former costs more than the latter.
You failed to realize that when people live longer - no matter what the cause - they use MORE in medical care. If cancer goes away tomorrow, Medicare costs will INCREASE. That is just a fact of life.I was talking about savings in Medicare, not in SS. And the former costs more than the latter.
No, that's not a fact, that is a pure speculation on your part. You don't know how expensive future treatments will be.
Take polio for example. This was a devastating decease and very expensive to treat -- until they came up with the vaccine costing peanuts.
You failed to realize that when people live longer - no matter what the cause - they use MORE in medical care. If cancer goes away tomorrow, Medicare costs will INCREASE. That is just a fact of life.
No, that's not a fact, that is a pure speculation on your part. You don't know how expensive future treatments will be.
Take polio for example. This was a devastating decease and very expensive to treat -- until they came up with the vaccine costing peanuts.
You really expecting a vaccine for old age?
No, that's not a fact, that is a pure speculation on your part. You don't know how expensive future treatments will be.
Take polio for example. This was a devastating decease and very expensive to treat -- until they came up with the vaccine costing peanuts.
You really expecting a vaccine for old age?
I am not expecting anything -- I am just saying that a lot could change in 30 years. So it would be premature to fix now the fiscal problems that are projected 30 years down the road.
You really expecting a vaccine for old age?
I am not expecting anything -- I am just saying that a lot could change in 30 years. So it would be premature to fix now the fiscal problems that are projected 30 years down the road.
Obama has been very adamant about fixing economic problems immediately. The, "Do it now!" slogan. Why are you suggesting no plan and let everything fall where it may?
I am not expecting anything -- I am just saying that a lot could change in 30 years. So it would be premature to fix now the fiscal problems that are projected 30 years down the road.
Obama has been very adamant about fixing economic problems immediately. The, "Do it now!" slogan. Why are you suggesting no plan and let everything fall where it may?
There are different kind economic problems, and they often require different solutions. Right now we need to stimulate the economy, and that means keeping up the spending and ignoring the deficits for now. If only because it is impossible to balance the budget in a depressed economy.
They'll just keep raising the debt ceiling.Democrats are not serious about budgets, which is why they haven't drafted/passed one in over 1000 days, even when they had the House, Senate and POTUS in place.
They probably see it as oppressive to have to say limits somehow must exist, somewhere.
Obama has been very adamant about fixing economic problems immediately. The, "Do it now!" slogan. Why are you suggesting no plan and let everything fall where it may?
There are different kind economic problems, and they often require different solutions. Right now we need to stimulate the economy, and that means keeping up the spending and ignoring the deficits for now. If only because it is impossible to balance the budget in a depressed economy.
Funding entitlements doesn't stimulate the economy, it is meant for subsistance needs.
I was talking about savings in Medicare, not in SS. And the former costs more than the latter.
Because SS benefits are hardly enough to see the world. Still, like I said, we will have to adjust the retirement age in these cases.
Why now? We haven't discovered the elixir of life yet.
People in Greece are not getting their benefits cut because they suddenly live longer. We are talking about the effects of new medical breakthroughs, remember? Because you were asking what miracle could make current long term projections way too pessimistic.
If not spend less than planned, the spend less than what? What you spend in a previous year? May be you can show me what Republican president managed to do that?
And the goal being what -- going back to the 1 million budget of 1789?
You've got your numbers wrong -- in his last budget Bush proposed almost 3 trillion in spending. And his first budget calls for only 1.84 trillion.
It's not just Bush, spending increased almost every year in the US history.
Fascinating! How do you think we can accomplish that? Eliminate SS, Medicare, all other welfare programs and military?