wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 23:13:57 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:26:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:
And, you believe that the economy will never recover significantly
enough
to
make progress toward reducing the debt... well, that's pretty
pessimistic
I
think.

Simple answer ... no ... there is not going to be enough growth to
sustain the ponzi schemes we have contracted with the boomers and
beyond.

I thought we were talking about jobs, not schemes. You're saying you don't
think jobs will return? Because basically that's what creates an economy
capable of dealing with the debt.


There just are not enough young people out there to support the number
of old people we have, even if they did get good jobs

There are, depending on how it's structured, how much costs can be reduced,
and possibly a change in benefits.


It is simple demographics. 2.1 workers per retiree can not sustain the
same benefit package the greatest generation extracted from short
sighted politicians when it was 18 workers per retiree.

Yet, that's exactly what Obama is trying to do... look at the long term.
He's being vilified for that on a daily basis.

Agreed, and so has every other politician who tries to touch the third
rail.

The "third rail" is typically Social Security.


Barry Goldwater warned us about this problem in 1964, when we might
have been able to actually do something about it but we denied there
was a problem and continued to kick the can down the road for another
46 years even adding to the problem with new entitlements. My kids
have a better chance of seeing a unicorn than they do of seeing a
social security check. The only question is whether the US as we know
it will still be here.

Well Sen. Goldwater had other problems... 1964 was a long time ago, and he
warned us about a lot of things.

Yes he warned us about a lot of things, most of which were right.

Like what? He changed his views on several things.


The fix for Social Security really had to happen a long time ago.

Completely untrue. It's an ongoing problem and solution set.



As much as I hate the idea of losing my benefits, I think we will have
to cut back on SS somehow and we really need to cut the COST of
medical care, not just get the government to pay for it.
Unfortunately that means we will be rationing care and there will not
be the kind of extravagant treatments for dead people than we are used
to. Up to half of the total medical expenditures most people have are
in their last 6 months of life and it really only buys them a month or
so.

The gov't isn't going to be "paying" for anything. The point is to offer
competition through a public option. That would do what you want, even
though you may not want to believe it. If you're worried about end of life
counseling then have a chat with Palin and the nut jobs who are calling it
death panels.

Of course the government/tax payer was going to pay. This will start
out as a modest health plan and then become the same boondoggle
Medicare has become, over budget, deficit spending with a 15-20% fraud
rate.
We will never agree to the taxes necessary to support "free" health
care.
Nobody has ever proven to anyone who actually looks that this will be
cheap.

According to you. And, you're wrong.


Personally I don't want that kind of care but I am not the usual
person. If I ever got that sick I would just want out.

It's called a living will. But, according to those on the right, that a
death panel decision not an individual decision.

The death panel is simply the people who decide whether a person
without a living will gets extraordinary measures in the last few days
of their life. I am for death panels.
Personally I will just want the nitrous oxide, hold the oxygen.
(the dentist's preferred form of punching out)

Right now, the rich live, the poorer die.

--
Nom=de=Plume