Well then we'd better come up with something better than what we have now. Or learn to live with less.Trust me, I'm with you, government needs to shrink, problem is, it's too late, we built a system that can't collapse, almost ponzi like, it would take tax revenue with it, same as if your income declines, but you still have a huge credit card payment, not good.
Tarrifs are exactly what we need, but will start a trade war, and weimar-esk inflation as chinas reserves flow back into our country while simultaneously driving bond yields to the moon, plus our lack of a manufacturing base would cause the prices of goods to soar. Also, imports are how we finance our government spending, when you buy a TV made in China those dollars go overseas to the PBOC, which in turn prints yuan to pay the factory that made the TV in local currency, and holds those US dollars in reserve by buying US Treasury bonds, so everytime you buy chinese, or any country, you finance US government spending.
Manufacturing was at its prime after WW2 because most of the world was in ruble, the US was the only remaining industrial nation capable of producing and exporting, which created massive wealth, along with unions which created the so called middle class, we will never see those days again. China the largest manufacturing economy in the world pays the "employees" next to nothing, I guess maybe they should work harder, or learn a trade lol.
I don't hate business, or think they are evil, the simple fact is the sole purpose of a business is to maximize wealth, at all costs including its employees, country, and environment. Rules need to balance it out, or the system collapses, much like monopoly which was based off the sherman act, and designed to show what happens when wealth is consolidated in too few hands, the game can either end, you can borrow from the bank, like we do in this country right now, or balance it out, call it socialism if you want, but the game cannot end.
retired benefits major hike
- Thread starter fedupforsure
- Start date
Well then we'd better come up with something better than what we have now. Or learn to live with less.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
So so dumb. Haven't been reading these posts because political debates on the internet are worthless, but this statement is amazingly stupid. Obama is hardly a liberal, let alone a radical one, he's center right.
And if you believe that I have some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell you.
Found a New York Times article where expert was cited as saying cost of treating current veterans will be $1 trillion over 40 years but can't find the 40 trillion CBO estimate.
Ok, my mistake. But no matter how you cut it. If you want to reduce the size of government then you will first have to find a way to reduce the demand for government services. With 78 million aging boomers good luck with that. Like wise if you want to grow the economy by means of expanded private sector consumption, that's fine . But you first have to create demand. With wages stagnate and a consumer focused on deleveraging creating demand will be most daunting task. Your point of view has considerable merit but it lacks specifics.
DontThrowPackages
Well-Known Member
But freedom isn't free. The teachings from the Book of Rush tell us so. I only wish someone would ask Canada, England, Spain, Holland, France, Italy, Australia and other first world countries how the're paying so little for their freedom?
Easy, their Uncle Sam spends enough on military hardware so that they don't have to. Leaves more for other things. But if you examine the economy of some you named you'll find real basket cases who are in real danger of collapse themselves. Others have sub par healthcare where the wealthy in those countries usually go to the States to be seen and treated as soon as possible instead of waiting many months in their home country. Obama isn't trying to raise us to their level, he's lowering us to their level.
You assume those services are a right, an entitlement. Not all are and are subject to elimination if the money isn't there. Also there's a huge amount of fraud, waste, and abuse. A few months ago the gov't admitted they couldn't account for the whereabouts of almost $200 billion on an annual basis. Fixing that would go a long way towards funding various services.
DontThrowPackages
Well-Known Member
Spain is the only countries, that I know on that list, with a shaky economy. What is your definition of subpar? lacking skill or the way the care is administrated? I can go to India and get care better than most hospitals in the USA. In fact, I remember speaking to a young woman from Canada living in the states. She said her friend came down to practice medicine but returned back to Canada. The Doctor said, "In Canada, I see a patient knowing my first responsibility is to get him/her well. In the states, my responsibility is to the insurance companies".
I won't be brain washed into thinking America is the best in everything. I know better.
Except that we have world class hospitals with doctors from all over the globe. When I lived in Tyler, TX the King of Saudi Arabia used to fly in to be seen as the spinal medicine clinic there. You have very good care in numerous places around the world, but it's limited in scope compared to the U.S.. And in Latin America, at least, most doctors were trained in the U.S.. Add Italy to your shaky list, and don't forget Portugal, Ireland, and of course Greece. It's a documented fact that many of the wealthy from Europe and Canada come to the U.S. for treatment because of wait times and quality of care. It's not that the U.S. is best in everything, it's that the profit motive drives quality. Unfortunately for the common man it makes it very difficult to pay for unless he has great insurance. Nobody seems to want to offer that kind of insurance anymore without paying dearly for it. Obamacare didn't make healthcare affordable for everyone, just the very poor. The rest of us are paying for them.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
I love seeing Jesus freaks complain about taking care of the poor. Hilarious.
I love seeing atheists grasp at straws when they have no better argument. I don't believe hospitals were turning away the poor before Obamacare. In this very thread it's pointed out what has happened to the middle class with jobs shipped overseas. So let's double down on the middle class with much higher insurance premiums?
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Hospitals are only required to provide stabilizing care before sending the uninsured to a county hospital.
Where they are then cared for.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Taxpayer supported facilities.
tourists24
Well-Known Member
As will any system that gives away "free" healthcare and treatment.
If you are ill and your personal economic resources and let's face if unless you are among the nation's elite your resources will over time will be exhausted due to age and disease you will seek out care and you will not care about the fact government picked up the tab. You will simply be glad you are alive. I can plainly that if anyone of you people were confronted with those choices your hard line conservative rhetoric will quickly go quiet .
It's not hardline, it's common sense. We're at 19 trillion and growing and the clock's ticking. If you believe we can do 25, 30, 40 trillion or more in debt without catastrophic consequences you are severely misinformed.
I'm trying to understand your point. Haven't we always had taxpayer supported county hospitals?
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
My point was if the uninsured went to a private hospital to seek emergency care they would be stabilized and then transferred to a county facility.
