Controlling federal spending is actually well under way

[LegendKiller]

We could cut 50% of the costs if we cut 50% of the service. To believe cutting 50% of the costs and keeping the same level of service is laughably naive.

Yes, because having 50% of the population get 80% of the service and the remaining 50% get only 20% and that at a very high cost is a great way of doing things.

What's even worse is that the well-off are subsidizing the 20% anyway by having insurance companies pay higher prices. This is because the poor end up either declaring bankruptcy (wiping out the bills) or just simply don't pay anyway. One way or another we are paying for it.

Then there's the bullshit they pull with denied claims. I went to a back doc and he sent me home with a bag of excercise equip. I later got a bill for $250 b/c my insurance denied the claim. The bag was obviously only worth <$50. So I called the doc office up and complained, they immediately reduced the amount to $50, the amount I would have paid if my insurance had only covered 80% (as usual, before my max out). So really what the guy is doing is buying some stuff for $30, charging $250 for it, the insurance would probably pay out $100 and he'd charge the patient $50 and all of the sudden he makes a 400% markup.

This is the stupid shit that pervades the system and one that could be ended quickly by having a single payer.

 

[fskimospy]

The tactic of spending tons of money to shorten a recession is certainly viable. I'm not really saying anything about that. What I'm saying is that when the US takes on 6tn of debt in 4 years, the only way to make the payment upon such a debt is to inflate the currency. First, the Fed doesn't really report accurate inflation numbers. Second, inflation is low for now, yes, but it cannot be in the near future.

That's just not accurate. The easist ballpark way to see whether or not a country can make payments on its debt is to check its debt/GDP ratio. Ours is most certainly still within the manageable range, and our debt/GDP ratio has in fact been higher in the past than it is today. So not only is inflation low now, but it does not necessarily need to be higher in the future. (although a modestly higher inflation rate would probably be a good thing)

Most interestingly, the market has no expectations for significant US inflation in the future, as evidenced by 10 year bond prices. If you DO think we're going to have major inflation coming you can bet against the market and make a killing. I will warn you however that quite a few people have been trying to do that for the last five years and have lost an awfully large amount of money.

Technically there is nothing to stop the US from printing endless money. This is a common misunderstanding of our monetary system. You even hear alot of politicians talking about "going bankrupt" and "defaulting" on our debt. Because we are the sole issuer, there is no reason for us to ever default, unless we want to start up a new currency. The real reason that taking on so much debt is a problem, is because the only way to deal with it in the long term is inflation, or ridiculous taxes. I think we all know that one of those 2 things will have to happen.

I don't think it's a common misunderstanding, at least it's not a misunderstanding I hold. And no, the only two options are not inflation or ridiculous taxes. The other option is continued economic growth.

And here inlies the problem with either, and thus the problem with taking on more debt than one can feasibly repay in any foreseeable amount of time. It destroys the confidence in the dollar. If nobody cared that we were inflating our dollar, or if nobody cared that Americans were spending very little money because they were being taxed for the sins of previous generations, and the dollar could retain its value in global trade, it would be viable.

However, people will be people. The mention of the debt ceiling causes the market to panic at times, and things like gold/silver to spike. For whatever reason, Americans, and really just people period, have no confidence in governments who cannot control their spending. And when you lose confidence in the dollar, it's only a matter of time before the fall of the currency, therefore the economy. A failing dollar would make the Great Depression look like a Sesame Street show where cookie monster runs out of cookies (actually that might be like every one of them now that I think of it).

There is absolutely zero evidence of anyone 'losing faith in the dollar'. The reason the debt ceiling might cause market panic has nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling, it had to do with NOT raising the debt ceiling. ie: if the US government decided it would no longer take on any more debt.

People have enormous faith in the US government, despite it's free spending ways. That's why US bond prices are so low. They are in fact so low at the moment that in many cases recently investors have been willing to take negative returns on them. That means they have so much faith in the US government that the government can dictate terms in which investors are paying the US money so that the US can borrow from them.

Point being, in a roundabout way, that we can sit here and argue whether that 6tn was necessary all day long. What we cannot argue about is the fact that hard times are ahead for whoever foots the bill. It may be 10 years, it may be half a century, but one day, people will pay for the last 4 years. They'll pay for all the money we've borrowed from them.

I'm not sure, did people in the 50's and 60's experience hard times from the huge debt we ran up in WW2? (a debt larger than we have now) I haven't noticed it yet, so when are we going to be paying for the sins of the 1930's and 40's?

Spending more money than you take in can seem like it doesn't have consequences in the heat of the moment. In the heat of the moment, we thought we "needed" all that extra spending (on top of what we were already overspending), but one day there will be alot of people who don't quite agree. I think time will definitely show it was very inefficient. Actually our current reality shows that.

Should we have cut spending? I don't think so. Were the bank/auto bailouts necessary? Absolutely. But the difference between those things and the stimulus for example, was that we made a deal with the bank/auto industry, and those companies either have paid us back already, or are working on it. That's not the problem. The problem was the 6tn we took up the ass. Do I have a solution? No. Could I if I was one of these idiot career politicians and spent my life working in government? I doubt it.

On a side note, I think it's the fact that average citizens have so much more perspective on the government that leads all of us to believe we could do a better job lol. In reality, most couldn't, but a fair few could.

Anyways now I'm just rambling. Before I go, let's get on the same page about the argument. We both agree some of that spending was necessary, and I don't want to argue about exactly what was, and what wasn't. I don't really know, and neither do you. Nobody can look at dollars pumped into the economy and tell you even 50 years later what exactly those dollars did, or how efficient they were. What I'm saying is that spending more than we take in is always, always bad. Even if it's necessary, it's bad. We all may die before we really see why, but one day, someone will.

Most great nations and empires saw an economic downfall far beyond a military downfall. In most cases, it was because they overreached. When you take on 6tn dollars of debt in 4 years, I think we can all agree we are overreaching.

I would have to say that if you look at the performance of the US as opposed to other countries that tried to cut spending during a depression our performance and even our long term debt outlook is considerably superior. I believe that not only was that spending necessary, but that we should have spent much more. We should still be spending more.

 

[Tom]

Show me where I ran away from not knowing what the fiscal cliff is..... Please, explain my words to me

Bush really didn't cause the depression at all. And the worst of it was during Obama's tenure. The guy above was right, it merely started during his term, and there is plenty of blame to go around. Most of the blame obviously lies with Congress and the Fed. Did Bush sign off on some things they sent him? Sure, but things like all the urban housing bills weren't really his fault. Again, sheep, if you'd like to attribute all those things to him, there are a ton of bad things that go under Obama's name. If you read, that's why I make sure I don't call even things like the 6tn Obama's fault. Because it was alot of people's fault. Did he push the stimulus package too much? Does he not really understand the economy? Sure, but he inherited a terrible situation, and you can't blame him for doing what everyone told him he should do. Save the economy Mr. Obama! He did a fine job.

Bush's tax cuts and his emphasis on lassaize faire capitalism and lack of regulation all were big factors in the housing bubble which is the leading cause of the Bush recession. What drove the housing bubble to extremes was people with more money than they knew what to do with looking for some kind of return, which led to the financial industry coming up with schemes to drastically increase the sale of bad mortgages with the idea of mixing them in with good mortgages to create better returns for investors, and it was all supposed to be protected by insurance from companies like AIG.

Bush tax cuts sped up the process by making the rich richer, faster. His lack of attention let the finance industry go too far.


Obama had absolutely zero to do with it.

 

[ivwshane]

Of course the 2nd part has nothing to do with single payer.

You are right! Your facts and reasoning really showed me how wrong I was.

/s

 

[rudder]

Nationalize the healthcare to fix the runaway cost. Rather than just pay the bills to greedy companies. US healthcare is way off the charts in cost compared to any other nation with public universal healthcare.

Right now you could cut the healthcare spending with 50% to truely nationalize it.

We can also fire all the medical staff across the country and bring in doctors from Ghana who will work for $3.50 week. We will save billions as a country.

 

[Ausm]

Another reason for single payer. Eliminate the middlemen and reign in the corrupt practices of doctors (unnecessary procedures, incentive based prescriptions, and over billing).

There are so many positive reasons for a single payer government run healthcare system that it's rediculous that we aren't even discussing it.

Pissed me off when President Obama negotiated nixing Single payer but then acting like he was still in favor of it on the stump.

 

[ivwshane]

Pissed me off when President Obama negotiated nixing Single payer but then acting like he was still in favor of it on the stump.

It wouldn't have passed anyway. The public isn't educated enough to overlook the right wing trolling. What the ACA does do is open up the discussion and it will highlight the inherent flaws of our current system. Change in this country is slow but it's how we ensure that the best policies are kept.

 

[nehalem256]

You are right! Your facts and reasoning really showed me how wrong I was.

/s

I am sorry I thought it was obvious that the following had nothing to do with single payer

and reign in the corrupt practices of doctors (unnecessary procedures, incentive based prescriptions, and over billing).

I guess if there was only one insurer then unnecessary procedures would end immediately ^_^

 

[themusgrat]

Bush's tax cuts and his emphasis on lassaize faire capitalism and lack of regulation all were big factors in the housing bubble which is the leading cause of the Bush recession. What drove the housing bubble to extremes was people with more money than they knew what to do with looking for some kind of return, which led to the financial industry coming up with schemes to drastically increase the sale of bad mortgages with the idea of mixing them in with good mortgages to create better returns for investors, and it was all supposed to be protected by insurance from companies like AIG.

Bush tax cuts sped up the process by making the rich richer, faster. His lack of attention let the finance industry go too far.


Obama had absolutely zero to do with it.

Obama obviously had zero to do with it. What I was saying is that alot of the stupid right likes to blame Obama for it, just like alot of the stupid left likes to blame Bush for it. Of course Bush did have more to do with it than Obama, but that only makes the stupid part of the left slightly less stupid.

Really I have no argument with you. I would love to know however, who managed to convince you that rich people being rich caused this recession? That's a new one. I don't watch much tv though, so it's hard for me to know when the latest regurgitation of cnn makes its way onto the internet. Oh and I just cannot resist. You talk about bush's lack of attention. Are you serious? So every time the financial sector makes a mistake, it's because there wasn't enough oversight? Maybe if the Fed wasn't out there artificially fixing interest rates, rich people wouldn't need to turn to high risk buyers to try to make a buck?

My opinion is that we were in the middle. You can make strict government regulation work, but at that point, it's not really capitalism or a free economy anymore. We either had too much or too little government. Because this is Murica, I would have liked to see less government.

 

[themusgrat]

That's just not accurate. The easist ballpark way to see whether or not a country can make payments on its debt is to check its debt/GDP ratio. Ours is most certainly still within the manageable range, and our debt/GDP ratio has in fact been higher in the past than it is today. So not only is inflation low now, but it does not necessarily need to be higher in the future. (although a modestly higher inflation rate would probably be a good thing)

Most interestingly, the market has no expectations for significant US inflation in the future, as evidenced by 10 year bond prices. If you DO think we're going to have major inflation coming you can bet against the market and make a killing. I will warn you however that quite a few people have been trying to do that for the last five years and have lost an awfully large amount of money.

So we agree inflation will be needed. The reason I think we'll need more of it than you is because you trust the government more. You trust them to spend less, take in more, and eventually get federal spending under control. There's nothing wrong with having faith in people, but I don't think that's realistic. I think something pretty bad would have to happen for politicians to stop spending and spending. Right now, there's not much reason for them to stop.

I don't think it's a common misunderstanding, at least it's not a misunderstanding I hold. And no, the only two options are not inflation or ridiculous taxes. The other option is continued economic growth.

That's fine, I wasn't saying you were mistaken. Again, when I say that those are the only 2 ways, I am assuming that no matter the economic growth, politicians have little reason to balance a budget then stick to it.

There is absolutely zero evidence of anyone 'losing faith in the dollar'. The reason the debt ceiling might cause market panic has nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling, it had to do with NOT raising the debt ceiling. ie: if the US government decided it would no longer take on any more debt.

People have enormous faith in the US government, despite it's free spending ways. That's why US bond prices are so low. They are in fact so low at the moment that in many cases recently investors have been willing to take negative returns on them. That means they have so much faith in the US government that the government can dictate terms in which investors are paying the US money so that the US can borrow from them.

If this was true, nobody would care about credit downgrades. People do have enormous faith in the US dollar, yes. It is still the standard currency of the entire world. What I am saying, is alot of our economic strength and therefore world power, comes from this. We get the benefit of the doubt, every time. However, our good grace with the world is not infinite. What happens when the national debt is 25tn? What about 50tn? Again, I'm assuming it will continue to rise. If it were to stop rising, that would mean we cut medicare/aid and/or SS. That would mean an economic downturn, and I have no reason to believe that would be an easy transition at all.

I do hope you're not one of those who believes in some sort of infinite amount of economic prosperity that America just hasn't tapped into yet. There is not going to be some sort of major source of spending power that pops up out of fairy land in the foreseeable future. Economic growth is good, but let's be realistic about it.

I'm not sure, did people in the 50's and 60's experience hard times from the huge debt we ran up in WW2? (a debt larger than we have now) I haven't noticed it yet, so when are we going to be paying for the sins of the 1930's and 40's?

First, yes, someone did pay for that. Second, when you consider the circumstances under which we took on the debt, then the circumstances under which we paid it, is there really any comparison? The reason Americans were ok with that debt, and ok with 90% tax rates, was that we were in a global war. It was a fight to survive. Do you honestly think politicians are going to be elected anytime in the near future who are going to significantly raise taxes? First thing Obama did his first term, he extended the Bush tax cuts. There wasn't even any significant talk of changes. Post-WWII, there were several factors that lead to incredible economic expansion. I trust you know the generality of the thing. Those factors are not present, nor will they be. If we're going to pay off this debt, it will be the old fashioned way. We will cut spending, raise taxes, and keep them there till the debt is paid off.

Again, there are alot of people will all the faith in the world that our good government will take care of us. Just keep giving them more and more money, and all our worries will be solved. I just don't think that's the way it works. Maybe with a different group of politicians, but this group has proven they'll spend everything you give them, then borrow from the future on top.

I really don't think we strongly disagree here. We both know that changes are needed in Washington for any good things to start happening on the national debt front.

I would have to say that if you look at the performance of the US as opposed to other countries that tried to cut spending during a depression our performance and even our long term debt outlook is considerably superior. I believe that not only was that spending necessary, but that we should have spent much more. We should still be spending more.

Well you're certainly entitled to that. I think our outlook is considerably superior not because of anything the government did (I think the government was mostly responsible for the recession in the first place, or at least the extent of it), I think the US is simply too good to fail. At least today. We have too many things going for us. There is our standing in world economics, there is our standing in technology, in medicine, there is our military. There is a long list of reasons nobody in this world is interested in seeing the US fail. And there are too many hard working people in this country to let the government screw it all up.

Alot of these things get completely attributed to the government. Some people blame the government entirely for the recession, and some people give the government absolute credit for the slow progress towards recovery we're seeing. It sounds like you're in the second camp. I disagree, and I think it is the hard work of Americans that is getting us back to where we need to be. Not politicians throwing unimaginable amounts of money at a problem they clearly don't understand; money someone else will have to repay.

 

[WackyDan]

HINT: It isn't a deficit reduction if you are still running deficits... This BS of reducing the deficit by "X" dollars over ten years is quite frankly insulting to the American people. Show me a year with no deficit and show me that you are using the same accounting method and laws that you enforce on businesses to do it and I might believe it.

 

[fskimospy]

So we agree inflation will be needed. The reason I think we'll need more of it than you is because you trust the government more. You trust them to spend less, take in more, and eventually get federal spending under control. There's nothing wrong with having faith in people, but I don't think that's realistic. I think something pretty bad would have to happen for politicians to stop spending and spending. Right now, there's not much reason for them to stop.

Actually I don't agree that inflation would be useful for our debt, I believe inflation would be useful because it would help make our exports more competitive as well as encourage people who are just parking money in treasuries to invest in other things. I do not believe that inflation is needed to service US federal debt.

That's fine, I wasn't saying you were mistaken. Again, when I say that those are the only 2 ways, I am assuming that no matter the economic growth, politicians have little reason to balance a budget then stick to it.

How do you explain the numerous periods in US history where we have significantly reduced our debt/GDP ratio then?

If this was true, nobody would care about credit downgrades. People do have enormous faith in the US dollar, yes. It is still the standard currency of the entire world. What I am saying, is alot of our economic strength and therefore world power, comes from this. We get the benefit of the doubt, every time. However, our good grace with the world is not infinite. What happens when the national debt is 25tn? What about 50tn? Again, I'm assuming it will continue to rise. If it were to stop rising, that would mean we cut medicare/aid and/or SS. That would mean an economic downturn, and I have no reason to believe that would be an easy transition at all.

I do hope you're not one of those who believes in some sort of infinite amount of economic prosperity that America just hasn't tapped into yet. There is not going to be some sort of major source of spending power that pops up out of fairy land in the foreseeable future. Economic growth is good, but let's be realistic about it.

I actually don't believe any of those things are necessary in order to trim our debt. Most of Medicare's scary projections come from out of control health care cost inflation that exists in our country as a whole. If that continues we will be ruined regardless as no one will be able to afford health care of any sort, public or private. If you tame Medicare cost inflation (by fixing our overall health care system) our budget becomes quite friendly very quickly.

First, yes, someone did pay for that. Second, when you consider the circumstances under which we took on the debt, then the circumstances under which we paid it, is there really any comparison? The reason Americans were ok with that debt, and ok with 90% tax rates, was that we were in a global war. It was a fight to survive. Do you honestly think politicians are going to be elected anytime in the near future who are going to significantly raise taxes? First thing Obama did his first term, he extended the Bush tax cuts. There wasn't even any significant talk of changes. Post-WWII, there were several factors that lead to incredible economic expansion. I trust you know the generality of the thing. Those factors are not present, nor will they be. If we're going to pay off this debt, it will be the old fashioned way. We will cut spending, raise taxes, and keep them there till the debt is paid off.

I don't agree. We mostly got our debt/GDP ratio under control through economic growth. While I definitely agree that we will have to cut spending and raise taxes somewhat when the economy recovers, I think you will be pleasantly surprised at how much the deficit will improve simply by a return to more normal employment.

Again, there are alot of people will all the faith in the world that our good government will take care of us. Just keep giving them more and more money, and all our worries will be solved. I just don't think that's the way it works. Maybe with a different group of politicians, but this group has proven they'll spend everything you give them, then borrow from the future on top.

I really don't think we strongly disagree here. We both know that changes are needed in Washington for any good things to start happening on the national debt front.

Sadly, we probably do strongly disagree here. I really do appreciate your very reasonable style of debate though. It's refreshing!

Well you're certainly entitled to that. I think our outlook is considerably superior not because of anything the government did (I think the government was mostly responsible for the recession in the first place, or at least the extent of it), I think the US is simply too good to fail. At least today. We have too many things going for us. There is our standing in world economics, there is our standing in technology, in medicine, there is our military. There is a long list of reasons nobody in this world is interested in seeing the US fail. And there are too many hard working people in this country to let the government screw it all up.

Well the UK served as a pretty good natural experiment on this. While of course no experiment is perfect, the UK followed a very US style national recovery until the end of 2010 when they shifted course towards austerity. Things went downhill quickly from there.

Alot of these things get completely attributed to the government. Some people blame the government entirely for the recession, and some people give the government absolute credit for the slow progress towards recovery we're seeing. It sounds like you're in the second camp. I disagree, and I think it is the hard work of Americans that is getting us back to where we need to be. Not politicians throwing unimaginable amounts of money at a problem they clearly don't understand.

I think that's a false choice. No sane person attributes everything to either one. I most certainly don't give the government credit for everything, but since we're talking about government policy that's what tends to be front and center.

 

[themusgrat]

....

I won't quote because it would be pointless. I'm arguing against theory, I see now. Yes, we can do all of what you say, and with reasonable budgets coupled with massive economic growth, the national deficit could one day be paid off. I think that's certainly a viable way to think. I don't think that's realistic. I think we are proving that right now. And the UK in 2010 is in no way any indication of how anything works at all in the US. This is the first time you've dabbled with ignorance. They were screwed before, and after. Right now we're in pretty good shape, and no, that's not because of stimulus spending. There is very little of that going on. What's going on presently is simply the status quo. And false choice? Son, that was my point. It's not either or. And sane or not, plenty of people attribute things to either one. I don't think I'd call them insane though. I'd call calling them insane posturing. Peacocking.

And yes, I know I'm refreshing. Thanks.

 

[Fern]

No, he's talking about a stable or shrinking debt/GDP ratio... you know the part about government debt that people should actually care about.
-snip-

Has the CBO produced any projections that demonstrate this?

Fern

 

[blackangst1]

That's just not accurate. The easist ballpark way to see whether or not a country can make payments on its debt is to check its debt/GDP ratio. Ours is most certainly still within the manageable range, and our debt/GDP ratio has in fact been higher in the past than it is today. So not only is inflation low now, but it does not necessarily need to be higher in the future. (although a modestly higher inflation rate would probably be a good thing)

Most interestingly, the market has no expectations for significant US inflation in the future, as evidenced by 10 year bond prices. If you DO think we're going to have major inflation coming you can bet against the market and make a killing. I will warn you however that quite a few people have been trying to do that for the last five years and have lost an awfully large amount of money.



I don't think it's a common misunderstanding, at least it's not a misunderstanding I hold. And no, the only two options are not inflation or ridiculous taxes. The other option is continued economic growth.



There is absolutely zero evidence of anyone 'losing faith in the dollar'. The reason the debt ceiling might cause market panic has nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling, it had to do with NOT raising the debt ceiling. ie: if the US government decided it would no longer take on any more debt.

People have enormous faith in the US government, despite it's free spending ways. That's why US bond prices are so low. They are in fact so low at the moment that in many cases recently investors have been willing to take negative returns on them. That means they have so much faith in the US government that the government can dictate terms in which investors are paying the US money so that the US can borrow from them.



I'm not sure, did people in the 50's and 60's experience hard times from the huge debt we ran up in WW2? (a debt larger than we have now) I haven't noticed it yet, so when are we going to be paying for the sins of the 1930's and 40's?



I would have to say that if you look at the performance of the US as opposed to other countries that tried to cut spending during a depression our performance and even our long term debt outlook is considerably superior. I believe that not only was that spending necessary, but that we should have spent much more. We should still be spending more.

I dont agree with you often, but I think youre spot on with this post. Although I take some exception with your last couple of sentences

 

[fskimospy]

I won't quote because it would be pointless. I'm arguing against theory, I see now. Yes, we can do all of what you say, and with reasonable budgets coupled with massive economic growth, the national deficit could one day be paid off. I think that's certainly a viable way to think. I don't think that's realistic. I think we are proving that right now. And the UK in 2010 is in no way any indication of how anything works at all in the US. This is the first time you've dabbled with ignorance. They were screwed before, and after. Right now we're in pretty good shape, and no, that's not because of stimulus spending. There is very little of that going on. What's going on presently is simply the status quo. And false choice? Son, that was my point. It's not either or. And sane or not, plenty of people attribute things to either one. I don't think I'd call them insane though. I'd call calling them insane posturing. Peacocking.

And yes, I know I'm refreshing. Thanks.

You aren't arguing against theory, you are arguing against US history and the experience of other OECD countries in similar circumstances. You might think that the experience of other countries has nothing to inform our policy with, but I most certainly wouldn't agree.

 

[xj0hnx]

Change in this country is slow but it's how we ensure that the best policies are kept.

Could you please give an example of this? I can't, off the top of my head think of any major policies that over time have been shaped into something better. Policies on drugs? Nope, the War on Drugs™ continues to drag the country down. Firearms? No, nothing there, same feel good, do nothing BS being tried year after year. Wall Street? LOL, riiiight, again blank.

 

[ivwshane]

Could you please give an example of this? I can't, off the top of my head think of any major policies that over time have been shaped into something better. Policies on drugs? Nope, the War on Drugs™ continues to drag the country down. Firearms? No, nothing there, same feel good, do nothing BS being tried year after year. Wall Street? LOL, riiiight, again blank.

Really? Peoples right to vote was just a quick change? Slavery was a quick change as well? Just a war and it was done? Equal rights happened really fast?

Well I guess because you can't think of anything then I must be wrong! It couldn't be you that's wrong who can only think of things that happened 30-40 years ago. Nope!

Read a book kid.

 

[ivwshane]

I am sorry I thought it was obvious that the following had nothing to do with single payer



I guess if there was only one insurer then unnecessary procedures would end immediately ^_^

Its only obvious if you are an idiot.

Single payer government run health care means the government sets the prices. A doctor can't charge $80 for aspirin if the government says aspirin costs $1. A doctor isn't going to prescribe unnecessary medicine if there is no kick back and patients will be able to get second opinions (with a doctor of their choosing) before unnecessary procedures are done.



Must be hard not knowing everything. I deal with it by looking things up on this tool called the internet.

 

[Zorkorist]

That study is bullshit. The govt is still spending too damn much. It pisses me off that Congress and Obama spend 700 Bn on the military this year and then $680Bn on the military next and then call it a spending reduction.

We don't need govt spending welfare on people and we don't need a fucking empire. It pisses me off to no end. I'm so fucking sick of the god damned militarists and the bureaucrats!

Just be mildly angry, at our Government, that is hopelessly lost.

It isn't your fault. This is what Government does.

So next time you see Government asking you to vote for taxes, vote no.
Next time they want you to vote for additional rights, vote no.
Next time they want to raise the debt limit, vote no.
They want universal health care, REALLY?! No.

-John

 

[themusgrat]

You aren't arguing against theory, you are arguing against US history and the experience of other OECD countries in similar circumstances. You might think that the experience of other countries has nothing to inform our policy with, but I most certainly wouldn't agree.

What are you even talking about? I'm arguing against US history? If there was a similar situation to what we have today, and I was arguing against it, then I would be. World War II and the economy surrounding it isn't directly comparable to now, and many things that worked then would not work today. Is this a joke? You know the funny part is that you didn't really even single out anything we did in WWII. You brought it up as a generality to argue against something I said. I then said it wasn't comparable, and now you're telling me I'm arguing against history. There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere. I've forgotten all the latin names of them or I'd tell you which one.

Then there's your idea on the UK. Please, tell me specifically what the UK did that applies to us. lol. The debt taken on by the UK was mostly bank bailout money. The government employs more than a quarter as many people as work in the private sector.

 

[xj0hnx]

Really? Peoples right to vote was just a quick change? Slavery was a quick change as well? Just a war and it was done? Equal rights happened really fast?

Well I guess because you can't think of anything then I must be wrong! It couldn't be you that's wrong who can only think of things that happened 30-40 years ago. Nope!

Read a book kid.

Exceptions to the rule? Sorry, but a lot more bad policy doesn't get better over time than does. Off your high horse now douchebag.

 

[ivwshane]

Exceptions to the rule? Sorry, but a lot more bad policy doesn't get better over time than does. Off your high horse now douchebag.

lol wut?


It's not my fault you are an idiot.


And it's douche bag, two words not one

 

[xj0hnx]

lol wut?


It's not my fault you are an idiot.


And it's douche bag, two words not one

Yea, I didn't think so

 

[ivwshane]

Yea, I didn't think so

So we are in agreement? You are an idiot and I'm a douche bag? Or are you agreeing that it isn't my fault you are an idiot?

Either way is fine by me.