Maverick McCainomics Could Alter Our Fiscal Future

How about blaming the right culprits?

Dennis, I believe if you'll take an honest look at the combined federal budget of the last seven years you will find that the "entitlements" of Social Security and Medicare were entirely paid for by themselves from their dedicated payroll taxes, AND that surpluses remained for the programs each and every year.

Considering that the entitlement surpluses actually served to supplement the combined federal budget, the $4,000,000,000,000.00 otherwise borrowed and added to the national debt is MORE THAN entirely due to the combination of the "Bush" tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 plus the two wars that were launched without voter approval of how they would be paid for.

The future generations ARE ALREADY drowning under trillions of debt to be paid back. And although McCain and the Republicans are more than willing to blatantly lie about the causes of this, I'm not willing to believe their falsehoods, and you shouldn't be.

Speaking of things not requiring an advanced degree to understand, the political problem of the moment with entitlements is that more than $2,000,000,000,000.00 has been borrowed by the more-wealthy payers of income tax FROM the less-wealthy payers of payroll tax (from the "Trust Funds"), and now the former are now unwilling to pay it back and looking for politicians who will let them skate away. McCain so far appears to be willing to participate in the scam and with luck will be soundly defeated by those dumb degree-lacking voters.

Daniel David of NM @ Apr 30, 2008 22:06:01 PM

I see above you think that cuts in entitlement spending will "reduce the future wealth of seniors' children and grandchildren and great grandchildren."

Providing these entitlements will cost over $5 trillion in the coming decades, and you argue that cutting benefits will take away wealth of the next generation. When the government sends out these checks, where does it get the money? it BORROWS it.

You worry about the wealth of future generations, yet if we do not cut entitlements, the future generations will be drowning under trillions in debt it has to pay back. This doesn't take an advanced degree to understand.

Dennis of NY @ Apr 30, 2008 18:44:40 PM

The "political" angle

Actually, Chris, I think I will continue to blame the Republicans for lack of progress on reforming health care to the advantage of citizens instead of corporations.

Though you'd have us believe that liberals have had ample opportunity to address the issues from government, I believe that since the Carter administration ended in 1980 that Democrats have held The White House and Congress together only during 1993 and 1994----specifically the era during which corporations resorted to hiring the ACTORS "Harry & Louise" to poison public opinion with scripted lies paraded as though they were the concerns of ordinary people. As long as the CORPORATIONS had their Republican minions sitting on either the presidential veto or the Senate filibuster, they were amply "protected."

As for "most Americans" opposing health care stuctures that are protecting the citizens of many other nations from personal medical bankruptcy, it simply ain't so.

Most Americans, even those who imagine themselves "safe" because they or a spouse are employed at places that still have reasonable group plans, are CLUELESS how exposed they are to losing everything with just minor changes in circumstances, or diagnoses, or even the financial health of their employers.

I'd be interested in hearing how many former employees of Enron you can find who oppose national tax-funded health care. I'd also be interested in how many public-sector employees you can find who would oppose it if you told them they can no longer have their public-sector unions to protect them with cushy plans on the public dime--the type that are disappearing every day in the private sector. I'd be interested in knowing how many Mom & Pop self-employed entrepreneurs you can find who would oppose it.

By the way, would you care to disclose your personal health care arrangements so we can all understand why you feel so assured about your own future?

Daniel David of NM @ Apr 30, 2008 15:30:18 PM

David, the problem is that government "could" do all of the things you have stated above. But that goes to my exact point. In order for government to do things that you want them to do, you must give them the power to do so. Now, I somehow bet that you are against the many so-called civil liberty violating acts the Bush Administration has enacted since 9/11. Yet, you are freely willing to allow the government to try to regulate away competition and risk in the medical sector. As I mentioned above, we have the government do so many things now, and the government has failed. Failed. No sir, Republicans and conservatives do not believe that corporations know better than individuals when it comes to making choices. However, Republicans and conservatives do recognize that corporations can assist in helping make reforms in their own industry than the government, which can't even manage the task it is given, namably passing a budget and providing security. What in theworld does the government know about providing healthcare? It's absolutely sad that people have become so drunk on the Kool-Aid of government knowing everything, that they can no longer recognize that having the government provide so-called "solutions", however well-intentioned they may be, ultimately hurt the people they are trying to help.

By the way, stop trying to dump this in the lap of Republicans. Republicans aren't the ones who are preventing nationalized healthcare from being implemented. I believe that the Democrats had a solid majority during the 50s, 60s, 70s, and the 80s. All during that time they had ample opportunity to pass nationalized health care. However, it was never done. Now, I don't think it was because the Democrats was in the pockets of insurance and pharmaceutical companies. No, I think the reason we don't have nationalized healthcare is because most Americans, outside of zealot liberals and Democrats, don't want it. We'll see again if there are any changes to the healthcare system if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama gets in and there are majorities in Congress. I'm willing to bet there will not be major changes to the system, and, if there are, won't be enacted for several years.

Chris of AZ @ Apr 30, 2008 13:14:40 PM

No government on earth can provide "free" health care. None of them are. But most of the democratic ones we count as allies have legislated moral triumphs for their PEOPLE that amount to nothing more than citizen voters properly limiting the monopolizing activities of for-profit CORPORATIONS in health care.

Americans are BEHIND the curve of what democracy should accomplish in this regard, not somehow still "ahead" as our corporate spinners prod us to imagine.

The arrogance of conservatives' claims about "best in the world" never actually defines best "what", and for benefit of exactly "whom". Both need clarification.

Government could outlaw the direct-to-consumer corporate advertising of drugs that only doctors can prescribe. Government could limit the scope of what can be patented by corporations for medical purposes. Government could outlaw corporations from taking bets for profit on whether you get sick or not (that thing we politely call "underwriting".)

Government could legislate that all hospitals are operated in the not-for-profit corporation model and establish "staff" standards in hospitals that assure people have time for handwashing and other cleanliness to lessen the incredible national waste we now endure with "staph" infection as well as commonplace medication errors-- both due to nothing but over-rushing and carelessness.

Government could outlaw corporations from accepting any form of indebtedness from individuals for health care services, including on credit cards (eliminating personal "medical" bankruptcy). By the same token, government--with a single-payer plan--could ensure that individual and corporate providers are always, always paid for their services and never stuck with uncompensated care.

Government could outlaw incorporated providers from banding together in "networks" (aka cartels) for purpose of restricting real choice and competition. Government could wholly abandon the patchwork of Medicaid, Medicare, S-Chip and VA programs, resulting in citizens demanding and designing a program that is not means-tested, or age-tested, or veteran-tested, and that works better for both citizen patients and citizen health workers.

Government could declare that although CITIZENS have a Constitutional right of free speech, defended forever, that CORPORATIONS are paper entities not even mentioned in the Constitution and that they do not have the same degree of free speech rights as citizens, thereby limiting their so-called "right" to run ads against the reforms we all know we need. "Harry and Louise" were fictional characters hired in the 1990s by corporate profiteers to lie to you from a TV megaphone with endless repetition. That continuing capability is at root of why most Americans answer the poll question year after year that America is on the "wrong track." We citizens can do better, and when Republicans are defeated and deposed from their insistence that corporations are better than you, we just might do so.

Daniel David of NM @ Apr 30, 2008 11:27:46 AM

The fact of the matter is, Daniel David, I DON'T know how to manage the program because I realize that trying to manage something that complex cannot simply be solved by "taxing the rich". It will require a combination of several things, such as the elderly's kids doing the TRUE moral thing and taking care of their OWN elderly parents and grandparents and cutting back spending and saving money, and also, in the most extreme cases where people cannot take care of themselves, the government should provide some assistance. In today's society, everyone's problems should become someone else's, but I shouldn't be surprised. After all, aren't all of the candidates promising to take care of everyone, even though they know there is no way in hell that it can be done?

Anyway, it is truly surprising that people continuously want to have the government solve our problems. I believe the government was supposed to free us from want and fear, but we see how that turned out. I believe the government was supposed to provide free education so everyone gets an opportunity to get ahead, but we see how that turned out. I believe the government was supposed to eradicate poverty, but we see how that turned out. I believe the government was supposed to eliminate drugs, but we see how that turned out. Everyone wants the government to provide "free" healthcare, but it can barely manage the Medicaid, Medicare, S-Chip, and VA programs. It's truly a shame that people, for the sake of false security, are willing to give the government more of their economic freedom away. But I digress.

Chris of AZ @ Apr 30, 2008 01:52:33 AM

A "noneconomic" thought, indeed.

I would invite Chris above to explain to us how exactly how HE believes that elder care, especially medical care, should be managed. Savings accounts, he says?

As for Hillary and Barack paying estate taxes? Yes, of course. They'll be first in line to see to it we have such laws.

Daniel David of NM @ Apr 29, 2008 18:45:49 PM

A noneconomic thought. The above posting is the exact reason why polticians will not reform Social Security or Medicare. You are fooling yourself if you somehow think that cutting Social Security will reduce the wealth of future generations, especially when we don't have the money in our savings accounts, but instead are sitting in the coffers of the government. Also, the Supreme Court has already ruled that us Americans who are to benefit from this system have no legal claim to any of the benefits in the Medicare or Social Security system (and if you don't have a legal claim to something, by technicality you do not have wealth). You don't need to have a degree in economics to know that there are less youngsters paying into Social Security and Medicare than there are old folks pulling money out. You do not need a degree in economics to know that our society isgetting older. These are facts. And when you have two systems that rely upon payroll taxes to finance its benefits, and when you have a population which is entering its twilight working years, you will have a fiscal problem.

No, what is dangerous is that people like the poster above have been hoodwinked into believing that the only way that people can escape poverty is by turning over the wealth that they have built up for years to the government for it to spend the money how it sees fit (I bet the above poster does not agree with the Iraq War, yet the government is paying for although many of its citizens don't agree with it. Well, this is what happens when you give your money to the government and allow it to spend it.) Oh, it's also surprising that in the poster's list of wealthy individuals, he studiously forgets to include the Clinton's $109 million estate and the Obama's $4.1 million estate. But of course, certain types of rich people are okay, I guess.

Chris of AZ @ Apr 29, 2008 13:46:12 PM