Federal Spending 2012 = $3.53 trillion
Obama 2013 budget request = $3.59 trillion
After Sequester = 3.55 trillion
OMG!!! With the sequester there is Gasp only an INCREASE of about $25 billion over the previous year. Doesn't the public know that the government is the epitome of efficiency. You would have to be crazy to think that the government has any sort of waste.
We all know that any half competent manager would demand agencies cut the lowest priority spending in their budget. You know maybe cut back on travel, go after excessive pay, or perhaps reduce staffing.
Surely President Obama wouldn't try to inflict maximum pain on the public by cutting vital services first. I mean there is just no way - because if that were true it would mean he is completely incompetent as a manager.
Wow, I never knew Economics was so black and white. Find some flaws in one study and so now it's all aboard the Krugman Express. WOOOO WOOOOO!!!! Who cares about inflation or increasing taxes or the ratio of GDP to debt. None of this matters anymore - Yippee!!! Crank up the printing press boys and let's double down on the ideas of our Big Government messiah John Maynard Keynes.
I mean what's the worst that can happen?
Rick no one thinks we should eliminate all regulations and become an unrestricted free market. Furthermore, no one talks about trickle down economics except for liberals. There is not one economist that has ever even argued for such a thing. You can criticize the right's position, but at least try and have a basic understanding of what you are criticizing first.
So Obama and the liberals kept saying that they deserve a vote. Well they got a vote and because it didn't go his way that means he gets to throw a tantrum about it - Ridiculous.
Your point Easy? Or you just showing everyone that you can type the phrase "opt of social security" into google and copy and paste the first result you get?
How about letting me and others who so desire opt out of Social Security? I will agree to never accept a social security check once I retire. And heck, I will even let the government keep all that money that they have squared away for me in the old "magical lock-box" free and clear. What is wrong with this idea? How in the world is this not fair?
CPI reform is not Social Security reform, it is correcting how we measure inflation. I'm glad that Obama acknowledged this needs to be fixed. The fact Democrats are freaking out over a technical correction so we can accurately measure inflation shows they are not serious about fixing Social Security. We need real Social Security reform and this is just a small step in the right direction.
Sadly, people have been lied to about Social Security. People have been told that it is a retirement insurance program where contributions are linked to benefits. In reality, however, it is a transfer of income from workers/self-employed to retired people. The Baby Boomers better wake up and realize that Social Security is broke before it is too late.
How about wait times in these other countries? Or what about cancer survival rates? Why do so many people come to America to get health treatments if our system is so bad? Comparing what other countries spend doesn't paint the whole picture.
Furthermore, why must the solution be a single payer system. Are the only choices keeping the status quo or going to single payer system?
The liberal experiment has failed. We have been borrowed huge amounts of money, expanded the size of the government workforce, and kept interest rates at zero and we have got nothing to show for it. Maybe we need to try something else like cutting government, stop raising taxes, simplifying regulations and getting rid of Obamacare.
The United States provides the highest quality care in the world. You can't simply compare what other countries spend on healthcare and assume because we spend more that we then must have an inferior healthcare system. For the same reason that a Ford Focus is cheaper than a Lexus ES 350, (the Lexus is nicer and has more features), medical care in other countries is obviously going to be cheaper when they lack many things that are more readily available in the United States. You are paying attention only to prices and not to the value we receive from those prices.
Also, the phrase "there is no such things as a free lunch" is a basic economic principle that you should have learned in the first week of any high school economic class. It is not some political philosophy that you can choose to ignore or try to discount by lumping it in with what you call Wing-nut bumper sticker slogans.
I can't tell you how your family should budget their income because that is up to you as an individual, plus everyone's situation is unique.
No one denies that there is a problem with how much we are paying for health care. But what in the world makes you think it's a good idea to just eliminate competition and let Washington have total control.
How come so many people from all these countries with "single payer 100% medical coverage" come to the United States to get their treatment if it works so well? Take for example Canada, where you have to wait on average 10 weeks to get an MRI just to see what's wrong with you. Well, lots of things can go wrong in those 10 weeks - from increase in pain to just plain old death. That sound like a healthcare system that you want to be apart of?
Healthcare in other countries with single payer may very well cost less if you only count the money cost, but you fail to account for such things like the time the patient has to spend waiting or the fact the medicine/surgery they need isn't available. So yeah, its easy to bring down costs when you just refuse to pay them. So unless you believe in some type of miracle, the government cannot reduce costs without consequences and those consequences will be disastrous.
Just remember - there is no such thing in life as a free lunch.