YOU fix the budget

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheTrueCentrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunately the choices on the website are very limited. For example, medicare should be totally eliminated. Let people buy their own health insurance and everyone will be better off. Seniors will be better off because they won’t be stuck with an inferior government health care system. Taxpayers who actually work for a living will be better off because they won’t have to pay the bill for something that is not and never has been any of their responsibility. Everybody wins and the deficit is lowered.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Unfortunately the choices on the website are very limited. For example, medicare should be totally eliminated. Let people buy their own health insurance and everyone will be better off. Seniors will be better off because they won’t be stuck with an inferior government health care system. Taxpayers who actually work for a living will be better off because they won’t have to pay the bill for something that is not and never has been any of their responsibility. Everybody wins and the deficit is lowered.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I don’t think the “everyone for yourself free for all” is the right way to go and what you explained here really sounds like that on the surface.
 
j1akey said:
Sorry but I don’t think the “everyone for yourself free for all” is the right way to go and what you explained here really sounds like that on the surface.
Click to expand...
No, just the plain old Catholic notion of subsidiarity. Who is best able to provide for their health expenses in old age? The individual and their family. Once you go beyond that you create huge problems.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
No, just the plain old Catholic notion of subsidiarity. Who is best able to provide for their health expenses in old age? The individual and their family. Once you go beyond that you create huge problems.
Click to expand...
But who says the individual and their family is best able to provide for health expenses in their old age. Part of the reason medicare was enacted was because they couldn’t provide for health expenses. The ability to provide for that is highly dependant on your own personal situation. What are you basing this idea on?
 
j1akey said:
Sorry but I don’t think the “everyone for yourself free for all” is the right way to go and what you explained here really sounds like that on the surface.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I don’t think throwing everyone into the pile and hoping they get something out of it all the while hoping it doesn’t bankrupt the nation, create a high permanent unemployment rate, and high cost of living is the way to go.
 
j1akey said:
But who says the individual and their family is best able to provide for health expenses in their old age. Part of the reason medicare was enacted was because they couldn’t provide for health expenses. The ability to provide for that is highly dependant on your own personal situation. What are you basing this idea on?
Click to expand...
Great thread! Subsidiarity is the right answer. Anyone pusing for government supply of healthcare is either a socialist or uneducated in history, our form of government, and logic - plain and simple.

Healthcare is a subject that is very personal and triggers emotion and stress. The left is trying to use this issue as effectively as possible to paint you as heartless.

Do not be fooled. It is simple campaign to push the US a large step toward a socialist state.

After all, I cannot find this feature of government in the constitution.

Keep up the fight to 2012 and beyond!
 
Dissolve the currency and start over with a gold standard or find some other bartering methods. Fiat currencies and sensible budgets are incompatible. This government doesn’t even need a budget if it’s going to continue to borrow from China and Ben Bernanke.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
No, just the plain old Catholic notion of subsidiarity. Who is best able to provide for their health expenses in old age? The individual and their family. Once you go beyond that you create huge problems.
Click to expand...
Actually, subsidiarity does not exist in a vacuum in Catholic Social Teaching:
The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need.
Click to expand...
Social privatism is the sign of a failed state.
 
The basic problem with the proposals offered is that they are anti-growth. The NY Times treats federal receipts as residing within a vacuum without considering the effects of the mechanisms by which revenue is generated. The twentieth century is a study in the destruction caused by ill-advised federal tax policy. Federal revenues do increase when the federal share of individual private transactions is lower, and they do decrease when the federal share is higher.

By this exercise, the NY Times appears to be constructing an argument that balancing the federal budget is not possible, which is not true, and that doing so is unnecessary anyway. Of course, the question of what the proper role of government is and how our answer affects the national budget is completely off the table. There is also the assumption that the wealthy ought to be taxed substantially, but this is one of the biggest job-killing ideas. Progressive taxation, as appealing as it may be, removes capital from the economy, and all private-sector jobs are created by capital. In terms of its ultimate effects, progressive taxation is the worst form of regressive tax policy because the effects–loss of jobs, economic stagnation, etc.–are never traced back to the source but are blamed on some group’s or politician’s evil motives.

I recommend perusal of the website of the Acton Institute. The president of the Acton Institute is Father Robert Sirico, and I especially recommend his contributions there.

Cheers,
FL
 
Black_Rose said:
Actually, subsidiarity does not exist in a vacuum in Catholic Social Teaching:

Social privatism is the sign of a failed state.
Click to expand...
Correct, but +Benedict is not making a case for governmental health care, in fact just the opposite.

What His Holiness is getting at is that for subsidiary to work, we must assist those who come to us for assistance.

The IRS is not in need of health insurance, therefore it has no right to demand that I fund it.

However, the underemployed family accross the street does, and therefore I am obligated to assist them ( and I do).

Governmental programs in this space are not needed under subsidiary.
 
FindingLove said:
The basic problem with the proposals offered is that they are anti-growth. The NY Times treats federal receipts as residing within a vacuum without considering the effects of the mechanisms by which revenue is generated. The twentieth century is a study in the destruction caused by ill-advised federal tax policy. Federal revenues do increase when the federal share of individual private transactions is lower, and they do decrease when the federal share is higher.
Click to expand...
Actually, history does not support such a supposition.
 
Abolish national health care. No one should be forced to buy insurance.

Abolish farm subsidies. Don’t pay farmers billions of dollars to grow nothing! Establish an alternative work system for farmers who are told not to grow so they do not lose their land.

Force Oil Companies to pay a yearly minimum tax of at least 2 per cent!

Force Wall Street to reveal ALL of their “opaque deals” now. And investigate and convict ALL those people involved in artificially raising home prices. And turn over whatever they own as compensation.

Aboilsh the tax on bank savings today.

Abolish “naked short selling” like Angela Merkel did in Germany. NOBODY should make money with nothing !!!

Allow private companies to compete with the US Postal System for mail delivery.

Peace,
Ed
 
Today's Mass readings:
In fact, when we were with you,
we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work,
neither should that one eat.
Click to expand...
HOW in-then-thi-tive! :rolleyes: Now let’s all sit back and watch 2nd Thessalonians get flamed for its lack of compassion and “social justice”…
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Unfortunately the choices on the website are very limited. For example, medicare should be totally eliminated. Let people buy their own health insurance and everyone will be better off. Seniors will be better off because they won’t be stuck with an inferior government health care system. Taxpayers who actually work for a living will be better off because they won’t have to pay the bill for something that is not and never has been any of their responsibility. Everybody wins and the deficit is lowered.
Click to expand...
I guess your going under the assumption that every single person, whether senior citizen or working/non-working person can afford to go out and purchase insurance?

What about the mentally impaired, chronically ill or children who are in orphanages? How would they be covered?
 
edwest2 said:
Abolish national health care. No one should be forced to buy insurance.
Click to expand...
What happens to those unfortunate souls who either choose not to or cannot afford medical insurance and they drop over in the street of a heart attack, stroke or other serious condition and get taken to the hospital?? Who has to pay? What if the person is indigent? Who gets stuck with the bill?
 
How much would we save just by repealing the really obvious waste like Obamacare and whatever portion still hasn’t been spent of that earlier Porkulus bill?

There’s one project from the Porkulus that’s actually close to where I live - they re-paved over this one stretch of road that there was nothing wrong with in the first place. This stimulated the economy of the area by temporarily obstructing one lane of traffic at a time for a couple of days. Oh and also they spent a few bucks so that we have a sign reminding us: “funded by the (Porkulus) Act of 2009”. Bravo, Mr. President. Bravo.
 
FindingLove said:
Actually, history supports this as a basic law of economics: friesian.com/sayslaw.htm (see question #6 in the middle of the article, then review the entire article on Say’s Law). I also recommend the economic works of black economist Thomas Sowell.

Cheers,
FL
Click to expand...
According to Wikipedia, these are Say’s exact words:
It is worthwhile to remark that a product is no sooner created than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value. When the producer has put the finishing hand to his product, he is most anxious to sell it immediately, lest its value should diminish in his hands. **Nor is he less anxious to dispose of the money he may get for it; for the value of money is also perishable. **But the only way of getting rid of money is in the purchase of some product or other. Thus the mere circumstance of creation of one product immediately opens a vent for other products.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. Say says (lol) that his law doesn’t apply in a deflationary environment since, by definition, in a deflationary environment, the value of cash rises (because money is taken out of circulation by consumers hoarding cash, and less borrowing means their would be less creation of money, money would be used to pay down debt further reducing the supply of money, etc.)
 
gamewell45 said:
What happens to those unfortunate souls who either choose not to or cannot afford medical insurance and they drop over in the street of a heart attack, stroke or other serious condition and get taken to the hospital?? Who has to pay? What if the person is indigent? Who gets stuck with the bill?
Click to expand...
All the other paying customers that go to that same hospital.

Which is a problem in and of itself.

But should not be solved by transferring those costs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top