$10 Trillion More Debt

[MickeyC]

What if it's not life threatening, what if it id debilitating? Requires long term treatment for a degenerative ailment?

You talk about a quick fix, ok, what is that fix? Tax cuts creating jobs, how? Rather than simply criticise, explain your plan.

Tom, you keep stating the following

Would you like me to trot out the pig in the slaughterhouse again?

Define your improved plan? What spending will you cut and how will that cut affect the debt situation? Stop blowing smoke up my ass and give me a plan that works. Any ass can criticise but where are the numbers to support your assertions?

XCRFan, you state that because healthcare isn't in the constitution, it shouldn't be on offer. Is the same true for education? It's not there either, so do we leave kids with no education. The constitution also does not guarantee total freedom, as for example it does not state that a jury should be of your peers. So when you stick a white guy on trial, a pure black jury is within the bounds of the constitution. Or life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that is the the declaration of independance, and not protected by the constitution. The constitution also does not 'protect' citizens from taxation.

Here are a few more sections from the constitution:



Article I Section 2 Paragraph 3:

“…direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several states…according to their respective Numbers…”

 

Article I Section 8 Paragraph 1:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

Article I Section 9 Paragraph 4:

“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein directed to be taken.”

 

The 16th Amendment

(30 words that changed the course of American history):

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

[MickeyC]

You guys that want a quick cut to spending, go live in Zimbabwe for a while. They have had a similar cut to spending and rise in unemployment, lack of free healthcare or education. See how you like it there and tell us what you think.

Some of you are so far to the right that you are even more extreme than the left. The problem is that you are both wrong. The fix is in the middle, you're just too stubourn or ignorent to accept it.

Cut spending, leave taxes as they are. Use the surplus generated to pay down the national debt. Then gradually ease up on taxation while further reducing public spending and eradicating duplication of government. The indcludes cutting military spending and welfare spending.

Cut spending (the left compromise on all the right compromise on military spending cuts)
Leave taxes as they are (the right compromise)
Gradually peel back medicare and medicaid spending and initiate tort reform to cut medical costs, then regulate maximum fees to ensure honest traiding in medical insurance.

[TomAiello]

The fix is in the middle, you're just too stubourn or ignorent to accept it.

The "middle" has tried to fix this for years, mostly by pandering to both sides.  They do this by spending money they don't have on both sides pet projects.

"What, you're worried about socialized medicine?  Well, if you let us spend a bunch of borrowed money on that, we'll let you spend a bunch of borrowed money on invading third world nations?  Everybody should be happy now..."

That kind of "middle" thinking, which dominates US politics and has for years, isn't in the "middle".  It's way over there on the side of statism--massive growth of the state apparatus to pander to as many groups as possible.  That's a certain way to continue increasind debt and make the situation deteriorate further.

Your way has been running things for years, and all you've done is sink us further and further into the hole, so that now it's going to be really painful to get out of that hole you've made.  And your argument is "well, now that we're here, we may as well keep digging, because climbing out of the hole will hurt.  But we can "compromise" by digging a little to the left and a little to the right, and that should make everyone happy."

Continuing down the same road is _not_ a solution, no matter how much you crave the comfort of a known path.

[TomAiello]

... where are the numbers to support your assertions?

This isn't about numbers.

It's not the job of the government to "fix" the economy.  It's the job of each individual to fix their own situation.  The government's job is to stop beating them down so they can do that.

"Oh noes!  If the government stops stealing from you, then everything will fall apart!  Help!  The sky is falling!  We can't fix anything and just have to stay in this handbasket and keep riding it down this road!"

[MickeyC]

Well go live in Somalia as that is the process followed there. Tell me how you like it.

If you don't like the middle road becasue the politicians have pet projects then send a message and vote them out. The problem here is that you disagree with the majority. Well, either change the majority opinion, live with it or leave.

Regarding showing your idea will work, if you can't show how your assertion will fix the problems then you talking out of your ass, or at least that is what the middle, left and independant voters will think. I agree that as a country we can't continue the status quo but some of the more radical plans are just as unworkable.

[XCRFan]

I have to get back to work as I have a serious deadline today, but let me just say this little tidbit.  The only way the government can force those who can work and force them off the government tit, is to cut them off completely.  Give them 90 days notice, fine. But cut the social spending.  It is the earmarks and social spending that is driving us into more and more debt.  These are called unfunded liabilities.  That simply means that the government has made promises to pay for things that they not only don't have the money for, but also have not borrowed money for yet.

The framers, only supported a national government because it was a "necessary evil" in oder to bring all the States together as one sovereign Nation with independent States (read Countries).  It was never the intention of the framers to have the government taking care of retirement, healthcare, or giving people who chose not to work money, etc.  They intended it to protect the people from State governments violating the rights of the people, ensure free trade among the States, the defense of the nation, treaties, etc.  The people have allowed the government to become so entrenched in our lives that many people are not willing to deal with the consequences (read pain) of and the effort it would take to remove the us from the grasp of the government.

Let's just use a heroin addict for a moment.  A heroin addict that has tried on his own to stop taking heroin, always fails to do so.  Why?  Because it is too painful.  So what did the government do.  They moved them off of heroin by getting them on to methadone, which is just a synthetic version of heroin.  So how does this help them addict?  The addict can go get the same high form the synthetic drug for free from the government.  Yes, I know the idea is to very, very slowly reduce the amount of methadone given, but you still get the point, I hope.  But in our current situation, we know the government doe snot slowly reduce anything here.  They just keep increasing the dose and tell us that we need to take more or we will all "die in the streets." 

As comforting as it may appear, government is not the answer.  We all bitch and moan because of our hatred for lobbyists, who are just hired by corporations/industries as a result of government control over those industries or restrictions placed on corporations due to special interest groups such as Green Peace for example.

Once the government gets its hands in a jar, they rarely ever come out of the jar, at least not empty handed.  But when they do, the sky is the limit.  Let's look at the telecom de-regulation.  At one time we had no choice as to who we could use for local telephone service.  If the telecoms wanted to increase rates they contributed to political campaigns and magically rates increased.  Once they were able to successfully de-regulate, all of a sudden this crazy and frightening thing happened.  Something called free market capitalism.  Competitors started up their own telecoms and now we have real price competition and greater value in most cases for the money. 

Government got out of the way and things got better.     What a concept. 

When people can no longer rely on the government to take care of them, something strange and magical happens. They somehow find work that, for some reason, wasn't there before.  Oh, spending and taxes can also get reduced even more. which equates to more money in YOUR pocket to buy whatever YOU want or donate it to some charity. 

Charities.  that is another thing that amazes me.  Somehow a charity can stretch a dollar into two dollars and be twice as effective for half the cost, but the government can only be half as effective for twice the cost.  Who would you rather give your money to?

[MickeyC]

It is the earmarks and social spending that is driving us into more and more debt.

Wrong, they contribute but Military and War spending by far outwieghs all other debt. I think you are confusing deficit debt with budgetary spending.

When people can no longer rely on the government to take care of them, something strange and magical happens.

Yes, but only to a point. In Somalia the government doesn't function at all, i.e no government, how well does that work?

Somehow a charity can stretch a dollar into two dollars and be twice as effective for half the cost

Actually many charaties consume huge ammounts of donation value in admiistrative fees, so don't go assuming this general statement is valid. The average consumption is 16% of donations, some are much worse. So $1 into $2 is not a valid argument.

The framers, only supported a national government because it was a "necessary evil" in oder to bring all the States together as one sovereign Nation with independent States (read Countries).  It was never the intention of the framers to have the government taking care of retirement, healthcare, or giving people who chose not to work money, etc.

You are correct, but they were also all wealthy land owners. They also wanted a democracy and the majority rule has decided to tacitly approve the direction the country has taken. Are you trying to pick and choose which parts or the constitution you want to support and which you don't?

What would you say if the State taxed you and not the federal government? Also who should manage the value of the dollar for international trade?

As for social programs, even back in the days of the aristocricy they cared for the workers who toiled on their land, providing homes, work, care etc.. Even providing acomodation when they were too old to work. Social welfare isn't a new concept, the problem is no modern government has got it right.

What is your issue with it? That the government is doing it or that it is happening at all? Would you rather have to manage it yourself?

Anyway, focus on your deadline and we can continue this discussion when you have some time. It's an interesting conversation.

[TomAiello]

The problem here is that you disagree with the majority. Well, either change the majority opinion, live with it or leave.

If 60% of the people decided to kill off  the other 40%, would that somehow make it ok?

By that logic, the holocaust was "ok" because the majority of Germans agreed with it at the time.

Some rights are inalienable.  It doesn't matter if the majority wants to take them away or not.  Majority does not rule absolutely.  You have a right to own weapons, to speak your mind, to not have your property stolen.  You retain those rights whether the majority would like to take them away from you or not.

...if you can't show how your assertion will fix the problems...

Again, you have totally missed my point.

If handing over absolute control of all lives in the US to a criminal syndicate could verifiably and with absolute certainty fix all problems, would you be in favor of it?  Regardless of the net effect (which I'd still argue is negative), violating the rights of the citizens is wrong.


I do not share your desire to give up essential rights for temporary comfort.  Repeating "well, it will make me comfortable" or "well, your path would make me uncomfortable" isn't likely to change my mind on that.

The comfort you seek, like that majority whose rule you yearn to live under, is not the most important thing in my universe.

[MickeyC]

Ok, first you are confusing taxation with theft. It is not. If you want to be a part of society you are going to have to pay taxes bacause it costs money to run a society. Who pays for roads etc...

Also the constitution supports taxation. No two ways about that.

If 60% of the people decided to kill off  the other 40%, would that somehow make it ok?

That's a little extreme, but that would infringe a right to life. As stated above taxation is supported by the constitution.

If handing over absolute control of all lives in the US to a criminal syndicate could verifiably and with absolute certainty fix all problems, would you be in favor of it?

no one is talking about handing over absolute control, and those crimminals were put in power by you and your fellow citizens. If you don't like them vote them out.

I do not share your desire to give up essential rights for temporary comfort.  Repeating "well, it will make me comfortable" or "well, your path would make me uncomfortable" isn't likely to change my mind on that.

Not uncomfortable, distructive, possibly permanently so. Please describe your universe and allow me to pick holes in it. You have picked holes in my views and I'd like return the favor. Maybe you can convince me.

[TomAiello]

Ok, first you are confusing taxation with theft.

Someone comes and takes your property against your will.  If you try to resist, they engage in violence toward you, possibly imprisoning or even killing you.  How is that not theft?

no one is talking about handing over absolute control, and those crimminals were put in power by you and your fellow citizens. If you don't like them vote them out.

The Federal government pretty much claims absolute power for itself.  It's power is continuously growing, almost always at the expense of the freedom of the people.

I'd prefer to live in a situation where some rights were respected regardless of who was currently holding the reins in DC.  Maybe we could right up a document that enumerated specific rights that had to be respected, regardless of who bought their way into Congress.  Crazy idea, I know.

I do not share your desire to give up essential rights for temporary comfort.  Repeating "well, it will make me comfortable" or "well, your path would make me uncomfortable" isn't likely to change my mind on that.

Not uncomfortable, distructive, possibly permanently so.

The distinction between uncomfortable and destructive is (a) open to debate, and (b) irrelevant to justifying abrogation of fundamental rights.  It's the same argument put forward by those who wish to ban guns--the guns could be destructive.  Personally, I'd rather live free, even if that means there is more danger and less comfort.

Please describe your universe and allow me to pick holes in it. You have picked holes in my views and I'd like return the favor. Maybe you can convince me.

Are you asking for a synopsis of my worldview and priorities, or a description of my ideal concept of society?

[Loonster]

Please describe your universe and allow me to pick holes in it. You have picked holes in my views and I'd like return the favor. Maybe you can convince me.

Are you asking for a synopsis of my worldview and priorities, or a description of my ideal concept of society?

I'm not MickeyC, but I'm rather interested in both if you have the time.

[MickeyC]

Someone comes and takes your property against your will.  If you try to resist, they engage in violence toward you, possibly imprisoning or even killing you.  How is that not theft?

Well I haven't heard of the IRS shooting people for not paying taxes, but collecting them is not theft because taxation is legal. You are claiming a crime when there is none. whether you agree with how it became legal is your isue, but it's legal in the constitution.

The Federal government pretty much claims absolute power for itself.  It's power is continuously growing, almost always at the expense of the freedom of the people.

I agree with you that it needs to be curbed, but not because just because it is out of hand, but because it is also a waste that duplicates many efforts of the states themselves. I also disagree that we need to return to the stone age and have tribal law, or are you against that as well?

The distinction between uncomfortable and destructive is (a) open to debate, and (b) irrelevant to justifying abrogation of fundamental rights.  It's the same argument put forward by those who wish to ban guns--the guns could be destructive.  Personally, I'd rather live free, even if that means there is more danger and less comfort.

Yes, it is an open debate, but your precious constitution doesn't guarantee freedom. Look at the restrictions it places on 'freedom'. Taxation is in there and due process by it's very definition shows regulation of activities. As for the guns are destuctive you miss the point. A compelte breakdown of social structure and anarchy is a little different to "oh you might shoot someone".  your argument is about as real as theirs.
Anyway, if you want perfect freedom, bugger of to Somalia. There is not government, no socialized medicine, no VA as that is socialized medicine and should also be banned according to your argument, no gun control, no tax, no medicare, no medicaid, no social security or sales tax. There are road tolls where you get shot for not paying, but that is private enterprise with no government regulation, so that should suit you down to a tee. Somalia, you can do as you please.  Hell, I'll buy you a ticket to paradise.

Are you asking for a synopsis of my worldview and priorities, or a description of my ideal concept of society?

Yes, you maintain that the current process is wrong by pointing out its flaws but have not presented an alternative. Please do so then perhaps your argument would be easier to understand.

[XCRFan]

Okay, first we must define a few things here.  One is democracy.  Democracy is essentially majority (read Mob) rule.  The reason this country is not a wholly democratic society, but instead a republic democracy, is because a democracy allows for the rights of the minority to be trampled on by the majority.  A republic protects the rights of the minority from the feet of the majority.

As far as taxes go, I have no problem paying taxes.  As long as those taxes go to supporting infrastructure such as "roads," military, etc, to name a few.  What I am opposed to is social programs where my and your taxes are used to take care of those who are fully capable of taking care of themselves and their families.  I am in favor of tax money being used to "HELP" support those who are truly disabled an therefore cannot support themselves or their families. 

So there I am not entirely heartless. 

I am also not in favor of bailing out corporations under any circumstance.  The problem with that is they will not learn their lessons.  How many times have the airlines been bailed out, simply because hundreds of thousands of people may end up unemployed and the government does not want unemployment to go up because it can "look" bad for them as a politician. 

Let me put it this way.  If I gave my son a BB gun and told him not to shoot animals with it, bit he does anyway and I find out about it.  What would you say I should do?  Say "oh well, I told you not to do it, but since you did it anyway, here is another can of BB's don't shoot your eye out."  One eye later... 

The best lessons learned are the painful ones.  I learned to stay out of trees as a kid, after I fell out and broke a leg.  I had been told to stay out time and time again, but it took bone snapping pain for me to learn. 

As for healthcare, anyone who wants healthcare (with very few exceptions which I will get to later) can get healthcare.  If your job does not offer it, then find a new job.  No jobs in your area?  Pack your crap up and be willing to go where the work is.  If you really want to work, you can find work.  Does that mean it will be easy?  No it does not.  Does that mean it will be your ideal job?  Maybe not.  I just got my ideal job a few years ago.  I have been working for 16 years (I'm only 33) and I have worked plenty of jobs that were not my ideal job.  Life can be tuff but we must work hard and push through. We as a society are much better off for it.

Those who have pre-existing conditions:  This is the biggest argument for those in favor of national healthcare (no such thing as free).  Let's say that you own a auto insurance company and the law says that you cannot deny coverage for pre-existing damage.  Now people have no incentive for having auto insurance beyond liability.  Since you would be able to get collision after you get in an accident.  Once the repairs are paid for, you would just drop the coverage.  Pretty soon you have no insurance companies because they are all out of business. 

Now, apply that to health insurance companies.  You see the problem there?  Now, before you get all slap happy on me, let me state this about pre-existing.  I support allowing for pre-existing conditions as long as the policy has been held for at least 6 months.  This is how maternity riders and orthodontics are handled, to prevent people from just getting the insurance to cover the delivery, etc. then dropping the rider (coverage).  This ensures that the insurance company (who shamefully is in business to make a profit) can offset the risks associated with such a policy.

This is my world   
 

[MickeyC]

When you state you are happy with taxation for certian things, how much is acceptible? How much to pay and how much to spend and on what? Get more specific please. You state that you are fine paying for Military spending, but that is the single greatest cause of national debt, outweighing all other causes of National debt.

As for jobs, you're wrong. Sometimes there simply aren't any jobs available. When the unemployment rate is around 3% you are probably right, but when it is 10% it's because there aren't enough jobs.

Your comment that there is always healthcare is also wrong and you contradict yourself. You state that if your job doesn't have healthcare, find another job and if one doesn't exist move.  Then you state that you have to work less than ideal jobs. Which is it? Also why no plan for tort reform, or governance to protect employees or consumers from predatory practices?

lessons learned are the painful ones.  I learned to stay out of trees as a kid, after I fell out and broke a leg.  I had been told to stay out time and time again, but it took bone snapping pain for me to learn. 

I disagree, the best lessons are the ones where the goal is readily apparent. If the lesson has to be beaten into toy it says more about you than the lesson. Perhaps you should have been taught how to climb a tree safely instead. That way you could have enjoyed the act of climbing while minimizing your risk.

You have a point about preexisting conditions, but you are failing to address the wider scope of this. What is an insurance company allowed to consider preexisting? How do you handle people covered who are forced to move state, as suggested b y your recommendetions over better jobs, and thus forced to change insurance companies? What about the poor who are born disadvantaged, what about them?

In your world anyone who is not in perfrect health or not wealthy, who has a predatory employer, is laid off or sick is screwed, a senior citizen or disadvantaded child is screwed.

Hmmm, glad I don't live in your world.

[XCRFan]

When you state you are happy with taxation for certian things, how much is acceptible? How much to pay and how much to spend and on what? Get more specific please. You state that you are fine paying for Military spending, but that is the single greatest cause of national debt, outweighing all other causes of National debt.

You keep touting that defense is the biggest contributor to debt.  Check your source.  My source http://www.usdebtclock.org/, shows that Both medicare and medicaid are each larger than Defense/War spending.  Defense is $662B while Medicare/Medicaid is $761B. Social Security is currently at $682B.

The we have the unfunded liabilities:  SS is $14 Trillion, Medicare is $18 Trillion,

US GDP is currently $14 Trillion.

As for jobs, you're wrong. Sometimes there simply aren't any jobs available. When the unemployment rate is around 3% you are probably right, but when it is 10% it's because there aren't enough jobs.

Job may be harder to come by but they are out there.  Again, most people sit around waiting for that one job they want to become available instead taking whatever job they can get. 

Your comment that there is always healthcare is also wrong and you contradict yourself. You state that if your job doesn't have healthcare, find another job and if one doesn't exist move.  Then you state that you have to work less than ideal jobs. Which is it? Also why no plan for tort reform, or governance to protect employees or consumers from predatory practices?

What I was trying to say was that if you need healthcare, and you do not want to get it on your own, but rather through an employer, and your current employer does not offer it, go work for one that does.  It may take a bit of time to find a new job with benefits, but you can do it.  They are out there.  I was listening to an interview of a guy who works construction complain that in 2003 there were no jobs and the economy stunk.  When he was asked where he lives, he stated Appalachia, West Virginia.  The problem here was that he expected the jobs to come to him in a place where construction is not ideal.  Instead he should go to where the jobs (read construction) are, like just about any other state or perhaps even in WV, but outside of the hills. 

Working jobs that are not one's ideal job.  I worked 3rd shift helpdesk, which made it very hard on my family, for a year and a half.  It was not ideal but it paid the bills, left a little extra for fun, and had benefits.  Eventually I found my dream job.  It sucked at the time, but  I had to do it.

lessons learned are the painful ones.  I learned to stay out of trees as a kid, after I fell out and broke a leg.  I had been told to stay out time and time again, but it took bone snapping pain for me to learn. 

I disagree, the best lessons are the ones where the goal is readily apparent. If the lesson has to be beaten into toy it says more about you than the lesson. Perhaps you should have been taught how to climb a tree safely instead. That way you could have enjoyed the act of climbing while minimizing your risk.

The point I was trying to make here, was that while the "readily apparent goals" are ideal, it may not be the best lesson.  Do you think banks and the financial sector learned their lessons after being bailed out?  Probably not.  Why?  Because they now know that they never again have to worry about bankruptcy or closing doors.  The Givernment [sic] will always bail them out again.  So what lesson was learned here?  Where is the readily apparent goal here? 

You have a point about preexisting conditions, but you are failing to address the wider scope of this. What is an insurance company allowed to consider preexisting?

The same standard used now.  Any condition that is reoccurring (chronic), or current. 

How do you handle people covered who are forced to move state, as suggested b y your recommendetions over better jobs, and thus forced to change insurance companies?

Remove restrictions by the states preventing the carrying over policies from state to state.  This is "supported by the Constitution" under the InterState Commerce clause.  Funny how the HC plan doesn't address this issue in any way shape or form.   

What about the poor who are born disadvantaged, what about them?

Ah yes, the inevitable "but what about the children?" argument.  It is the parent's responsibility to take care of and provide for them.  Not your's, not mine.  I love my children way too much to be poor.  I will work as many low paying jobs I have to in order to provide.  That is the difference be tween me and those who are poor.  I could be poor.  You know how?  By not working and living off of other people's handouts and the Givernment [sic] tit.  The poor will always remain poor until they stop getting handouts.  Until then...  I also do not buy the argument that because you are born poor therefore you are disadvantaged.  Just Google "rags to riches" and read plenty of stories about those who were born poor and disadvantaged.  Or go rent "pursuit of happyness". 

Life is not fair.  Never has been and it never WILL be, ever, period.  Accept it.  We are all disadvantaged at some point in our lives and actually throughout our lives at different times.  You apply for that promotion at work but the other guy gets it instead.  Guess what you were disadvantaged.  He had an edge.  Maybe he dates the bosses daughter.  Does it matter?  He had the advantage.  Move on.  Work harder, your time will come. 

In your world anyone who is not in perfrect health or not wealthy, who has a predatory employer, is laid off or sick is screwed, a senior citizen or disadvantaded child is screwed.

I do not know if you were getting angry or what, but you missed my statement in which I clearly stated that those who are physically incapable of working, for example, mentally challenged, paralyzed, etc, should be supported.  I don't even mind by the Givernment.  My issue is money being taken out of my pay and given to those who are fully capable of working and providing for their own needs and the needs of their family.  I work hard enough providing for my own, and the Givernment [sic] says I have to pay for some other person and for some other fools who couldn't figure out how to save for their retirement. 

It is just wrong on so many levels.  It is a giant Ponzi scheme which is illegal if we do it, but okay for the government?   

[piusmilitis]

Really, what has to happen before they will just stop spending money.  Please, please DC stop trying to 'fix' the country.

[MickeyC]

piusimilitis,

That's simple. Keep taxes static for at least ten years. Cut government budgets accross the board (social security, VA, military, health etc) by incremental ammounts until a new baseline is set, between pain and reality, and then improve efficiencies and regulate business to reduce costs for services to ensure budget cuts don't compeltely eliminate certain services. Stop bailing out broken businesses. tune corporate regulation to reduce the administrative overhead whilst also ensuring fraudulant or overtly risks practices don't risk the greater economy. the problem is not or that is popular.
XCRFan,

Spending is not Debt. Debt is caused by excess spending and the way the budgets are allocated, it is actually defense and war spending that accounts for most of the current government debt load. The US system of government accounting required budget to be accommodated by bills. As an example take a fuel tax. Fuel taxes raised are allocated to highways and EPA, for example. You can't use that money for anything else. Any shortfall comes from debt issues. Military spending has created more debt issues than any other budget item. If the US
The comment that SS and Medicare are unfunded is not actually true.  The SS trust fund, or bond fund exists. That fund isn't expected to run out until 2041-2046. The concern is that social security spending will exceed SS tax income in the middle of the next decade. At this point the government will need to start repaying the 'loans' it took form social security. Medicare is in a similar situation. cuts in expenditure can avert this to an extent, as can a growth in GDP and associated tax receipts.
Regarding access to healthcare, your presumption is that all can afford healthcare, and it's simply untrue. Some people simply don't or can't make enough to meet premiums along with other living costs. how many shifts at McDonalds do you need to meet a premium for a family of four?

On lessons learned, yes it's a fair point. However a lesson that restricts future learning is a poor teacher. If the 'pain' is too great such as with the great depression which occurred due a lack of government control, the damage to an economy and country can last a whole generation.
RE: Preexisting conditions and state moves: OK, that seems acceptable, but what about people who were not able to afford healthcare in the early stage of their lives and then when they are able to, are denied due to a pre-existing condition.? Also isn't the government forcing insurers to operate across state lines against your whole ethos of minimal government intervention?
Work harder, your life will come. What bullshit. What will you do about the members of society who aren't in the top 50% of intelligence, or those in the lower 10%. For whom work is always a mash of low paid work. Life isn't fair, but society can at least set a minimum standard of living. Other countries have shown that this is often cheaper than not doing it. Take social security. You pay someone $100 in benefits per week, he lives in a low cost housing and finds day labor occasionally. That beats $903 per week in costs for a prison cell.

Oh, and I'm not angry but I am amazed at how flawed (some of) your logic is, or perhaps your viewpoint is too narrow as to the effects and knock on effects of your propositions. I fully agree that those who are fully capable of working and for whom jobs exist, there should be no state aid other than a safety net to provide basic medical care and income to ensure a minimum standard of living. i.e. food and shelter. no car, no TV, no tobacco or alcohol etc.. It should equate to just less than minimum wage to ensure that working a job is always a more comfortable proposition. the sick, the old and the young should be provided for at appropriate levels. The sick because they can't help themselves, the old because they have paid their dues and the young because they are the future. We should not start wars because they are expensive, Henry VII worked that one out and became one of the richest monarchs in history as a result. We need enough defense to protect ourselves against one or two enemies, but we don't need enough to take on the entire planet at the same time. We should butt out of others affairs and become a little more self sufficient and a little less greedy.

[XCRFan]

We should not start wars because they are expensive, Henry VII worked that one out and became one of the richest monarchs in history as a result. We need enough defense to protect ourselves against one or two enemies, but we don't need enough to take on the entire planet at the same time. We should butt out of others affairs and become a little more self sufficient and a little less greedy.

We can agree there.


On the rest of the social issues, we will have to agree to just disagree.  In any case you are still my XCR brother.   

[MickeyC]

Damned straight. It's been a good conversation. Thanks and respect.