Who is going to pay for it all?
 

Well?

your mom

I'm sorry (us liberals are always apologizing.) I couldn't help it. I'm still giggling like an idiot. :blush:

We are going to pay for it. And so will our kids. But we and our kids will also reap the benefits.

Which particular thing are we talking about?

you know, the communist takeover. ;)

Socialist! Socialist takeover! SHHHHH! We don't want them to know it's communist until after the midterm elections.

Actually, I just got finished with Christmas shopping for my kids... but hey, the economic future of our country is important too.


So, on that subject you're ok with throwing another metric asston of debt on your kids and their kids and so on because they are getting some benefit? What benefit do you consider to be worth the burden to your kids?

But for the Christmas stuff we did really good this year. We decided we'd only use our change jar for Christmas this year. No exchange with parents/siblings this year, just kids. The money the adults usually spend on eachother was pooled together with donations from our clients and we adopted a couple families from a local battered mothers shelter.

They can have the benefit of paying off the debt I incur buying their Christmas presents.

So many are having to scale back in ways they never dreamed of: dormant are the days of easily acquired jones-rivalling houses and nice cars (two apiece!) and never doing without all the latest in everything one could wish to acquire.

Its about time that the ungrateful little brats cowboy up. ;)

Christmas has basically been canceled at my house. :(
I told my older kids that yesterday when I asked what they wanted. Made sure they put some real thought into it as they are only getting one thing with a much lower dollar limit than in years past. The good news is that my time spent shopping will be severely reduced and I won't be dealing with the crowds.

It's open enrollment time at work, and this time of year always pisses me off. The rates go up and the benefits go down. My employer just switched health plans, and the new plan is so bad, my wife and I had a conversation about maybe not covering her and the kids this year. Looking at the numbers, it's clearly not even close to being worth it to have health insurance, but there is always that little chance that one of them will get cancer or something. So we are going to pay an arm and a leg to keep the worthless insurance.

It's hard to know what will happen with health care reform. The devil is in the details and they are not set yet. But it's hard to see how it could be worse than what we have now. If more people start paying into the system, then maybe what I pay to cover sick strangers will be reduced a little bit.

That's the goal, but do you really believe any solution they come up with will genuinely be less expensive/invasive/frustrating in the long run?

Jusht put it on my tab. :hic:

Pay for what? the wars?

Oh, that's all paid for! No questions asked. Something about "living in fear of losing all our freedoms..." Yes, I know that's the argument against trying to reform the nightmare that is our health care system, but someone has to point out the hypocrisy therein.

all would probably encompass, well, all of it.

Foolishly blowing untold $$$$$$$$ in war zones certainly can't be justification enough for foolishly blowing untold $$$$$$$ on other boondoggles.

at least those other "boondoggles" will directly help people in the US.

ya know what? This is the same old argument about to happen that has always happened. Fook it.

I'm not arguing. I don't give a fuck about what programs or boondoggles we're talking about anymore. The question really does boil down to the thread title. Who is going to pay for it? How? You have to have something more substantial than "those rich fuckers with two cars".

who's paying for shit now? Those same people, I imagine, the MIDDLE CLASS, will get stuck with the bill like they've always been stuck with the bill.

I don't see any rich people selling match-sticks just yet. Calm down.

I'll leave more substantial answers for the more astute dwellars who can argue these kinds of things, and also for a question that deserves a more substantial answer: something a bit less open-ended and baiting than "who's gonna pay. who who who?"

A lot of people are having to suck it up right now. Perhaps you are angry because you are having to suck it up too.

Ah well, tis the real world.

No, no, no. Its the upper 1% in income. Just ask Merc. We treat the wealthy very unkindly. Of course the middle class should pay more. That way the rich will be relieved of their horrible tax burden. :rolleyes:

Angry? Not at all. Annoyed and frustrated that so many people don't seem to care.

I've got a friend who rages on and on about people borrowing money they knew they had no chance of paying back, (a reasonable complaint, IMO) but then he will turn immediately to the need for a program to do this or that admirable thing. I ask him how to pay for it and he just says that is the government's job to figure it out. The government pays for things by taxing what they can and borrowing the rest. There is a disconnect in there somewhere.

Bri - Of course, the middle class (regardless of who you think that is) will pay for it because they pay for everything. The politicians come from the wealthy and they'll never put anything in place that genuinely hurts them and theirs. They'll talk and talk to get the middle and lower classes upset enough to support their plan all the while knowing there are plenty of loopholes for the rich. So in the end a plan to hammer the rich always gets the middle class instead.

Shawnee - I'm smack dab in middle class so I've been sucking it up all along and that is ok - that's life.

Here's the math:

500.00/month for a single mother of three for food, sundries. She has to go to a church charity once a week to feed her kids - oh, who stocks the church food pantry? the same people who were taxed to give her the five hundred.

1 fucking whole lot more/month for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan - and for training their soliders so one day they can turn around and attack us properly. Who pays this bill? The same people who stock the church food pantry.


Such a disconnect. Boggles the mind.

if you're asking who will pay for health care - you're paying for that homeless person's CABG NOW whether you want to believe that or not.

I r conservative so not so smart. Let me see if I understand what you're saying.

1) A mother of 3 is receiving $500/month. The obvious point is that isn't enough to support the family. She goes to a charity program to receive additional assistance. Glad to hear that such a program is able to exist based on the donations it receives. Obviously the mother is not living the life of dreams. That is unfortunate and I feel for her situation. I genuinely hope that she sees a turnaround soon.

2) Iraq and Afghanistan are fucked and we're sending truckloads of money dressed in camouflage there every month. Yep, that sucks and we've got to figure out a way to end that charlie fox asap. Yep, taxpayers are on the hook for that. Of course, we're spending more than we're collecting so we're really borrowing money to do that. Money my kids and their kids will have to pay back in future taxes. That sucks.

3) Healthcare. So our tax money pays for a very very minimal welfare system which hardly provides enough to make ends meet, got it. I'm glad that at least that small safety net is in place. Where you lose me is in the idea that because we are wasting money in one place I shouldn't lose any sleep over borrowing more money to pay for an entirely new bureaucracy to be created and administered.

That is kind of like a doctor looking at a patient with a gunshot wound in the chest and deciding since he's losing so much blood anyway, maybe we could take a little more from him for some experimental shit on the side.

yeah.

really.

that's it, lookout.

Get us out of the middle fooking east and help out our own. That's what I mean. gotta go- off to the doc. Thank god I can afford the doctor, eh?

Just curious Bri, when exactly did I become your enemy?

lookout...correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that you are attempting to make this a conservative = good, liberal=bad discussion....but lets assume you're not.

The US has been deficit spending for most of the last 100 years, particularly in times of war and economic recession and each time, the economy has recovered and grown and become even stronger because the US economic engine is still the most powerful in the world....even in a global economy, the likes of which we have never seen in the past.

More importantly, fiscal discipline is not just a macro concept. It requires individuals to recognize their own spending limits. Our parents and grand-parents understood that, but more recently, IMO, far too many Americans have been slow or unwilling to recognize and accept that personal responsibility.

When one becomes so spoiled as a nation, the concept of personal sacrifice gets lost.

Conservative = good, liberal = bad? well, du-uh.

Not really, conservative and liberal are irrelevant except when trying to classify and separate people.

My concern for spending is not new or limited to healthcare. Deficit spending is not new and not necessarily the end of the world. What concerns me though is the fact we don't seem to care about our ability to service our debt. We're talking degrees of scale here. The family that wakes up to realize they earn $4,000 per month but payout $3,500 to debt before even eating is well and truly screwed. Our government and we need to understand that it works like that at the national level too.

If it seems I'm only concerned with the cost of healthcare, I'm not, it's just that is the latest greatest program we want to create that will cost trillions more than we have.

If it's any consolation, I heard on NPR this morning that at the latest "what the hell are we gonna do about Afghanistan" meeting in the White House, Obama had the money guys sitting at the same table as the generals as he was briefed about options.

Depending on what order they're allowed to speak that may be a good thing.

Sorry, I've got no confidence in the bean counters approach to warfare. The President should pick his generals based on the idea they'll push forward his agenda. If he doesn't trust them to do so, then fire them and get someone who will. His Generals said more than 3 months ago they needed X number of troops and he still hasn't come to a decision. If he thought they were wrong he should replace the officers who made the request and go back to the drawing board.

Actually, that worries me even more.

oh and EXACTLY what L123 said. Make a fookin decision man!

So now this is about Afghanistan and only the generals should be heard?

I agree on the bean counters....but would suggest that a deliberative process involving persons with diplomatic experience, foreign policy experience, an understanding of the geo-political history and structure of the country, etc. is equally important.

More often than not, history has shown that generals believe they can win if given enough boots on the ground and money to fight the enemy.

Winning on the battle field is not the only way to victory nor is it always the best.

Lookout! We're cool! I've always liked your rich white self! :)

Just kinda feeling punk-ish and out of sorts. Plus, we do all know who pays for things. We do. Not the lower 10% not the upper 5% - us.

By you own argument, doesn't the president need to know if we can afford to continue/increase our presence in the middle east? Isn't this like one of those "admirable things" your friend talks about?

My (overly simplified) view is the president sets the agenda, the generals set the strategy, the bean counters find a way to pay for it - in that order.

Strategy and tactics should not be decided on a spreadsheet. The agenda can be if that is what the president wants.

ROFLOL - Stop it with the common sense Lookout.
Go plan someones investments or something.
You're killin' me here.

fair enough. I've got an appointment now. I'll check in with you chucklemonkeys later.

I agree with the "over simplified".

The strategy should also include how to get out and how to maintain peace and stability and security after we are gone....or it might all be for naught.....sorta like, what we didnt do in Iraq.

And we want to repeat that same process?

That's the point Redux.

Get out of Iraq isn't the strategy, it is the agenda. The generals have to come up with the strategy (obviously in conjunction with State where appropriate). The bean counters have to find a way to fund the strategy.

on that note, i really have to run.

I sure hope that the president considers spreadsheets when setting agendas. It's a critical part of the process.

Or at least some nice colorful graphs and charts. Maybe even finding out if we can pay for a war, before just jumping in.

It was going to pay for itself, right?

I'm in - Me likes the charts :o

I don't know about that honestly. I'm one of those old fashioned nutjobs who believes it is never wrong to do the right thing. If the president, congress, and associated elected leaders believe there is a compelling reason to go to war (attacked by Japan) then I want them to do the right thing and then order the bean counters to figure out the payment method. Of course, that would require a nation of citizens willing to actually entertain the idea of personal discomfort and sacrifice so I'm not sure that would work here anymore.

Perhaps, in part, because the wars we have sold during our lifetime, from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, do not come anywhere near reaching the same level of perceived threat as the attack by Japan.

That, and as a nation, we have become much more selfish.

Yup - that entitlement mentality will be the end of us.

Come to think of it, I may just quit my job and get the handouts - At least I'll have more time at home.

So what if "doing the right thing" is providing high quality healthcare at a reasonable cost for all Americans, or fixing the economy. Do you do the right thing and then "order the bean counters to figure out the payment method". Of course, the debate then is to establish what "the right thing" is.

is providing high quality healthcare at a reasonable cost a component of protecting all enemies both foreign and domestic?

You said:
"the right thing" encompasses more than just
Just saying.

I know what you're saying. I'm just saying I don't see government sponsored healthcare as "the right thing". Personal opinion.

fair enough. what would you propose for all these uninsured (or even insured americans) who lose everything due to health care costs? Get cancer=lose your house! this is ok? Have a heartattack=homelessness! THIS is ok? I used to think like you, lookout, then shit happened. if you live long enough shit WILL happen to you - shit BEYOND your control. We don't care about our neighbors in this country. It's stupid.

David Brooks addresses this question in a pretty clear way. Security vs vitality are the competing values he talks about and you can see it in the Cellar arguements.

I don't think it should come to security OR vitality. The country needs both, IMHO.

What happens when the budget doesn't allow both. I am NOT asking you to choose between healthcare and/or war. It seems that our Gov't just continually spends money we don't have. But what happens when the hard choices have to be made? They don't seem to make them. Instead they spend future money. Both the R's and the D's.

Shit does happen. Shit like losing everything so my first son could be born. Shit happens. Hasn't changed my view yet, but give it time.

Without vitality, there is zero hope of security. The present Congress and Administration are all-security, no-vitality. This is too myopic to be endured. The Welfare State was proven nonviable in the last century, and this wildeyed pursuit of outworn policies calls not only the Democrats' wisdom into question, but their collective mental hygiene as well.

Way I see it, it proves no one in the senior ranks of the Democratic Party except the Blue Dogs has any wisdom at all.

The short answer to that is INFLATION. This constitutes a direct frontal assault on the US dollar, and the Democrats have carried this assault to an extreme, in pursuit of an ill-considered goal. Enought to make you vote Libertarian, isn't it.

And I say, don't pay for any of it. Don't invent money out of the air to buy it. Just don't do it, at all. We can do without single-payer, government-issue, bureaucrat-rationed health care, coverage, or insurance. We can do with a tort-reformed, nationwide-marketed, nonmonopolistic private health insurance industry.

I predict your out of pocket costs for preimums are going to go way up in the near future if the current plans in Congress are passed.

This is one way they are going to pay for it:

http://www.economics21.org/commentar...king-time-bomb