ObamaCare: You Get What You Pay For

[ronaldo23]

---

Members do not see this ad.

1. I agree that research money should not be cut (and it's a drop in the bucket anyway), and that military research has produced a lot of amazing inventions we use in our daily lives, but that's because they get SO much money - way more than any other sphere of research. If that money was diverted to other ventures, we'd still see some great inventions.

2. The unemployment rate for older people is high - I'm not sure where these jobs for old people are going to come from, or how the market could absorb higher rates of employment for senior citizens. Employment prospects for younger people is based off the idea that eventually, old people hang up and go home. If you raise the retirement age, you're going to find either of these situations depending on which sector you're looking at: older, experienced, people making it impossible for new graduates to find work, or older, unemployed people in danger of becoming homeless.

4. None of the budget cuts you've suggested even come close to closing the deficit.

I think we can balance the budget without raising taxes a dime. The Bush Tax cuts need to be made permanent, so businesses have predictability and can make long-term decisions about hiring employees without having a draconian tax code change every decade. Plus, it's not the government's money. Some politicians like Bernie Sanders think that tax-cuts are "government hand outs", as though letting people keep more of their money is unjust. Remember, it's the people who have earned it. They shouldn't be responsible for bailing out an ineffective federal government that lives beyond its means, and borrows money from China, or worse, creates new money out of thin air (via the Bernanke printing press inc.) to pay for the welfare and warfare state.

I recommend to everyone the book "Downsizing government:" it goes through thousands of programs that can be cut, privatized or eliminated based on inefficiencies. It has many plans to balance the budget without any tax increases, as the thesis is that the problem is spending, not revenue. As far as military cuts, we can easily save 100s of billions by practicing non-interventionism, bringing the troops home from europe, japan, and korea and letting those countries and the regional powers (like china) deal with their respective regional problems. Also raise SS to 70 (and changing rules to prevent generous cost of living increases). Cut the federal work force or pay by 10%, or freeze hiring. Government jobs aren't actually economic growth...they are not self-sustaining like a job in the private sector, and it just comes at the taxpayers dime, with bloated benefits above market value.

 

[MOHS_01]

1. I agree that research money should not be cut (and it's a drop in the bucket anyway), and that military research has produced a lot of amazing inventions we use in our daily lives, but that's because they get SO much money - way more than any other sphere of research. If that money was diverted to other ventures, we'd still see some great inventions.

2. The unemployment rate for older people is high - I'm not sure where these jobs for old people are going to come from, or how the market could absorb higher rates of employment for senior citizens. Employment prospects for younger people is based off the idea that eventually, old people hang up and go home. If you raise the retirement age, you're going to find either of these situations depending on which sector you're looking at: older, experienced, people making it impossible for new graduates to find work, or older, unemployed people in danger of becoming homeless.

4. None of the budget cuts you've suggested even come close to closing the deficit.

1. On the topic of military spending: national defense is a primary priority; every other discussed program is a secondary priority. Without some mechanism ensuring the primary priorities (defense and healthy population sustainment) the secondary priorities (such as these beloved social welfare programs) are useless. As others have stated above -- unless the UN and the rest of the world wants to start paying a protection fee, bring the boys & girls home and stop with the nonsense around the globe. Transform the military from yesteryear's war to tomorrow's, and place a greater emphasis on actual defense capabilities.

2. Freely fluctuating wage levels would correct for this naturally, so I don't see what the problem is. Wait, I see it now -- too damn many federal, state, and local government jobs combined with the distortions of unions on labor markets interfere with the natural corrections in wages.... got it. Damn them Republicans for not addressing this nonsense when they said they would and had the opportunity to do so.

3. (I guess three disappeared -- damn government education.)

4. There is no way to close the budget hole without massive slashes in the welfare state.

 

[ronaldo23]

1. On the topic of military spending: national defense is a primary priority; every other discussed program is a secondary priority. Without some mechanism ensuring the primary priorities (defense and healthy population sustainment) the secondary priorities (such as these beloved social welfare programs) are useless. As others have stated above -- unless the UN and the rest of the world wants to start paying a protection fee, bring the boys & girls home and stop with the nonsense around the globe. Transform the military from yesteryear's war to tomorrow's, and place a greater emphasis on actual defense capabilities.

2. Freely fluctuating wage levels would correct for this naturally, so I don't see what the problem is. Wait, I see it now -- too damn many federal, state, and local government jobs combined with the distortions of unions on labor markets interfere with the natural corrections in wages.... got it. Damn them Republicans for not addressing this nonsense when they said they would and had the opportunity to do so.

3. (I guess three disappeared -- damn government education.)

4. There is no way to close the budget hole without massive slashes in the welfare state.

Agreed. National defense is the number priority of a strong federal government. Problem is that a huge chunk of our military has almost nothing to do with defense. Let's protect our own borders and security in the United States. Subsidizing troops in europe, korea, japan are not in our national interests, and being the world police doesn't make us any safer. If anything it has the opposite effect: extremists of other countries build up resentment against America, and inspire terrorists to have a common enemy in us. Al Qaeda would never be able to stand on its own two feet as an ideology...it's able to mobilize new members in part based on resentment towards US presence in the middle east. I think as a nation, we are great at winning wars, but not at nation building. We should have gone in to Afghanistan, taken out military targets, and cut and run...not stay and build the schools and bridges of their country as our own fall apart.

But we also need substantial cuts in the welfare state as well, no doubt. We have to go head on to the entitlement programs, and make the politically tough decisions to stand up to the AARP. The point is that we can't have a serious debate about balancing the budget without acknowledging that every department and program is on the table for cuts, including the military.

 

[lee9786]

Agreed. National defense is the number priority of a strong federal government. Problem is that a huge chunk of our military has almost nothing to do with defense. Let's protect our own borders and security in the United States. Subsidizing troops in europe, korea, japan are not in our national interests, and being the world police doesn't make us any safer. If anything it has the opposite effect: extremists of other countries build up resentment against America, and inspire terrorists to have a common enemy in us. Al Qaeda would never be able to stand on its own two feet as an ideology...it's able to mobilize new members in part based on resentment towards US presence in the middle east. I think as a nation, we are great at winning wars, but not at nation building. We should have gone in to Afghanistan, taken out military targets, and cut and run...not stay and build the schools and bridges of their country as our own fall apart.

But we also need substantial cuts in the welfare state as well, no doubt. We have to go head on to the entitlement programs, and make the politically tough decisions to stand up to the AARP. The point is that we can't have a serious debate about balancing the budget without acknowledging that every department and program is on the table for cuts, including the military.

Well it doesn't look like offense/defense spending is going to decrease as US troops train in South Korea in hopes for a peaceful resolution (aka the economic collapse of North Korea without the use of nuclear warheads). Unfortunately neither Democrats nor Republicans are really attempting to decrease the influence of the Military Industrial Complex. Onto entitlements aka Medicare... It looks as the fee-for-service system is going to result in Medicare's bankruptcy. What is the payment construct after FFS? Pay for Performance?