I find it curious that neither of you suggested cuts in military spending. The United States currently accounts for 47% of the entire worlds spending on military. 72 times that of Iran and North Korea combined! Add the future cost of caring for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan which is going to be astronomical. And it will just get higher with new conflicts. War has become an incredibly costly enterprise for Americans. Most importantly, the personal impact on the lives of veterans and their families and the many that have lost loved ones. An economically strong America yields more power and influence than any amount of cruise missiles.
The reason why I think you don't see more of Ron Paul is because most mainstream Conservatives consider him on the loony fringe. During the Bush years Hillary Clinton is famous for saying: • "I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration." • "We are Americans; we have the right to participate and debate any administration." Unlike the other liberal biased networks, Fox news takes Hillary's quotes literally... And I believe if you further researched & watched the events of the Tea Parties on Fox News – I think you'd have a different opinion. I agree with the first part, Republicans ARE concerned that the Tea Parties WILL split the vote thereby increasing the chances a Democrat might win an election. But instead, I think a Democrat organizer might pose as a Tea Partier at a rally; hold racist signs; and/or incite violence to discredit the Tea Party movement (just my own cynical theory). I agree. There is little journalistic integrity these days. I'm not sure journalistic integrity is even taught in college anymore. Yes, politicians do pander to Big Unions, minorities, special interests, and are often corrupt...
Dead horse? Zackman, am I beating a dead horse? If so, I'll stop. What I wanted to know is if you would support the actual cuts I proposed; that is, under Medicare/Medicaid, 1) no coverage for major organ transplants (heart, liver, kidney, lung, etc.), or for treatments that merely take over the function of failed major organs (dyalysis, for example), which would no longer be covered; and, no coverage of prescription drugs other than generics, unless it had been demonstrated by scientific studies that a patent drug produced superior outcomes (not currently required under FDA rules, when they approve a new drug); then, means testing for Social Security Retirement benefits in which no person would be paid retirement benefits who had annual income from all sources of, let's say, $25,000 per year, or net worth exceeding $500,000 regardless of income. Accepting either of these proposals will result in an immediate loss of benefits to a large number of people who are currently receiving them; but, would be trimming the expenditures for both Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security Retirement, big programs all, at the edges, eliminating from Med/Medicaid some of the most expensive care they provide; and, in the case of Soc Security, eliminating the unfairness and waste associated with passing payroll taxes from working people to a class of people without a demonstrated need for the money. Can you go for either one, Zackman? (I won't ask again, just to be courteous.) _____________________ Brewster, about your comments on military spending, I hadn't made reference to them for what I consider the most important reason; that is, that cuts can be made to military spending that don't result in an immediate loss of benefits to people who are now receiving them, like losing treatment for your failing heart would; or losing the monthly retirement benefit check you get from Social Security would. Unless you get specific, the discussion doesn't result in anyone having to make any decisions of consequence; but, the reason many of these problems haven't been dealt with is that no one wants to make any decisions of consequence, even imaginary ones, like on a forum, preferring to stick to platitudes like you can find on the Tea Party website, which almost anybody could agree to in principle, but don't amount to a bucket of warm pee.
V, I don't know how long you have been out of the country, but a maximum income for csocial security of $25,000 or even the net worth number you are proposing wouldn't even come close to allowing a couple to live at even the poverty level. I know of nowhere that two people can live on $25,000 per year. If you are going to propose any cuts, the numbers have to be realistic and I can tell you that $25k isn't even close to being realistic. Perhaps a phase out of benefits starting at $50,000 and ending completely at $100,000 would be possible, but if you cut off the right of people to even survive then the whole program doesn't make sense. Would you be in favor of no social security payments being made to people who did not live in the US? I don't think that one would fly also. Your pet peeve is the self employment tax because it hits you directly where the income tax probably doesn't hit you. If we are going to have a social security program that will work at all, there has to be a combination of reduced benefits and increased taxes. Your proposal to eliminate medicare for dialysis is also one the wouldn't even remotely pass as it would be a death sentence for many people who need dialysis. As for transplants, it is pretty rare that someone over 65 years old is getting a transplant so I don't see that as an issue. A better fix would involve reducing the huge rip off that exists in disability payments. Hardly anyone I know who is receiving disability is not capable of working in some capacity. Benefits are given to many on the pure basis of them asking for them. We have one guy getting disability benefits because he is too fat to work. Sorry, but that just isn't right.
That is the flag governments raise when they talk about cost cutting. Do you want us to cut Medicare? Social Security? I think there are billions spent in other areas that most people would consider frivolous. I once got a hold of the Canadian Federal budget, I think for 1998, and I was absolutely astounded at where some of our money was going. Billions to Native affairs, for instance. The number spent would have made all the natives in Canada millionaires! Who the heck is ending up with all this money? Another approach might be to invite Bill Gates down to Temptation with us. Get him hammered and then have him write out a check to pay off the Federal Debt....
That's true, it's also very expensive and, with treatment, they can live for years, at extraordinary taxpayer expense. If it's not an issue, can you agree to exclude coverage for it, then, including any and all who now are eligible for transplants under Medicare/Medicaid? I agree, the exact figures would require some work. But, survive? Do you know the figure for average earnings of a working person, nationwide is, right now? I wouldn't allow an individual with a large net worth, or significant income, to be on the dole, and potentially living better than those who are supporting his lifestyle. Again, your numbers, as before, sound far to generous to me when we're talking about working people having to support these rather well to do retirees. I don't disagree that the dollar figure for the cutoff could be set higher than I suggested, without doing damage to the concept, and my suggested figure is probably too low; yet, many working people in the U.S. earn even less than that.... I'd really be alarmed at the idea of any individual, living in retirement with an income of $50,000 per year, receiving any retirement benefit paid for by working people. And, I'm not opposed to the idea contained in the net worth concept, that a retiree should be on their own resources, until such time as they may actually need public assistance, through liquidation of assets they may possess. No, as with the others, I'd apply a means test in establishing who could get retirement benefits. You probably didn't see that in one of my posts I indicated I pay a higher percentage of my total income (not net taxable income), in income taxes than in self-employment tax. _____________________ Brewster wrote: These, being the largest, are the ones most in need of cutting/containing. They threaten to require the commitment of the entire federal budget in the next two decades, unless brought under control. You don't have quite the same problem in Canada, because you have national health, rather than private provision of medical care, paid for by the government, like we have here. The fact that health care delivery is in private hands guarantees that it will be more expensive; however, this is preferred, by many Americans, in part for philosophical reasons. At some point, because of the extremely high cost of doing it this way, it will have to be reconsidered. _____________________
A small summing up.... The limitations on eligibility to receive social security retirement benefits I proposed would exclude me from eligibility. I would accept that, because I don't believe those who do not need the money should be getting it. I would personally accept exclusions of coverage under Medicare/Medicaid for major organ failure, knowing that it is possible that, at some point, I or another might need this coverage. The doctor that delivered me didn't say to me, "You are a lucky little fellow: you've been born into a country where your countrymen will pay for any and all medical care that may be required to keep you alive, no matter what the cost, provided you can just make it to 65 YOA." Anything that's paid for by taxpayers has to be reasonable in scope to be justifiable. Americans are objecting to the cost of the existing program, even though it has an amazing gap of 65 years from birth till it fully kicks in, and we must respond by making it more affordable; first, by cutting coverage, then by looking to see if there isn't a less expensive way to deliver health care to our people. (Of course there is, and many countries have found a better way.) Just going through the process of closely looking at what could be cut from coverage could wake people up, and get them to start seriously considering the issues involved, instead of simply whining about high taxes to pay for it. ___________________ I believe the biggest problem America faces in coming to terms with its financial crisis is cultural; that is, we don't want to pay for things we think we need, but we want them anyway. This cultural characteristic has led us to the abyss. You could call it self-indulgence, if you wish. (If Americans have become that, it took some time, and a lot of the most powerful persuasion that marketeers could develop and apply to the population, over a number of decades, but we've arrived at that point. Americans still work hard, but spend even harder.) It's not characteristic of every culture I'm familiar with to be this self-indulgent, and heedless of debt. Some cultures believe in self-sacrifice as a standard, and the people in those cultures are comfortable doing without many things we'd feel deprived of, if we tried to do without them. This cultural difference expresses itself in amazing ways, at times. I mentioned on another thread that Chinese people, in China, save on average 30% of their income. They can do this because they think it's important to save, and to do so they are willing to do without things they might otherwise like to have. You may not be aware of how profoundly this affects them, even when they come to America. Although most people are familiar with the tales of Chinese immigrants living poorly, and saving money, with the result that their children enjoy a better life, they also place a very high value on education, and push their children to get as much education as possible. These cultural traits carry on, into subsequent generations, and reflect themselves in other ways as well. The average income for Chinese descendants in America, last time I checked, was $55,000 annually, while for the population as a whole, it was $45,000. I mention this only to illustrate the difference that culture can make. America is in serious trouble, its people need to be told that, squarely, and told what they each need to do to make things right. I believe the American people can and would respond, if they thought it was necessary. The country is, like many people who live on credit, not nearly as rich as it has appeared to be: adjusting back to a standard of living that fits the true financial condition of the country would be the first step in getting things back in balance, with a real hope of then moving ahead, again. Denying that things are as bad as all that just postpones the inevitable, it seems to me. I could be wrong, but everything I know about the situation tells me I'm not: this is one time when it would be nice to be wrong. ___________________ A summary of my views of where the U.S. finds itself, at this point in history, can be found at- http://www.cancuncare.com/forum/liv...04-nervously-eyeing-markets-3.html#post320381 _____________________
