Unfunded Liabilities

[Neomalthusian]

In 1981, debt was 32.5% of GDP. By 1993, it was 66.1%. Then by 2001, it was 56.4%, and by 2009, it was 85.2% and rising rapidly. Looks like your "pro-spending" people are the ones who rein in debt while whatever those other people are let it get completely out of hand.

:roll: My comments had nothing to do with political parties. Why do you insist on dragging it back to that? Do you think I give a **** about categorizing debt according to whose party has the White House?

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Wondering two things. First, why use 2009 as this was Obama's first year in office and included his stimulus.

Did you notice anything about 1981, 1993, and 2001 by any chance?

It is also the lowest point in GDP because of the recession...

Seriously? You believe that real GDP was lower in 2009 than it was in 2001?

...so it looks again like someone who enjoys twisting facts and thinks that is debating fun, have at it!

LOL! It's the right-wing that needs twisted facts. I can just go copy the actual ones out of any reputable source.

Next, did you consider the bank loans to be debt? If so now that they are repaid do you go back and relook at your 2009 numbers.

What? Are you not familiar with the composition of public debt? Are you not familiar with even the basics of accounting?

 

[Cardinal Fang]

:roll: My comments had nothing to do with political parties.

Is there any way to associate "pro-spending" with Republicans? No. Since they didn't have any actual issues to raise and they knew from the start that the mess they made would require a lot of spending to put right, they've been complaining about exactly that for four years. Your claims of nonpartisanship fall flat.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Is there any way to associate "pro-spending" with Republicans? No.

WTF were you doing between 2000 and 2008?

Your claims of nonpartisanship fall flat.

Your desperation to make it partisan is showing.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

WTF were you doing between 2000 and 2008?

Same thing I'm doing now. Only more of it.

Your desperation to make it partisan is showing.

The comment was overtly partisan in a climate that pits wild-eyed tax-hating spending-cutters against rational people.

 

[Fisher]

The only way we could slow the race to the bottom IMO would be to nationalize the healthcare industry and create wage scales with salary caps on them similar to the military which would require nothing less than a Constitutional amendment. People can dance around everything else until they turn blue in the face, but healthcare costs are destroying the economy. If the government is going to be in the market directly at all, it needs to be able to control those expenses which it clearly cannot. The government has to either let the private market deal with it all or they need to take over the entire market--there is no workable in between by my measure.

 

[washunut]

Did you notice anything about 1981, 1993, and 2001 by any chance?


Seriously? You believe that real GDP was lower in 2009 than it was in 2001?


LOL! It's the right-wing that needs twisted facts. I can just go copy the actual ones out of any reputable source.


What? Are you not familiar with the composition of public debt? Are you not familiar with even the basics of accounting?

I guess as you are a legend in your own mind, someone who has been a director of finance at fortune 200 companies probably know nothing. What does 2009 being the bottom of the current recession have to do with 2001? Enlighten us.

You seem to have a much inflated view of yourself and live in a black and white world. In addition you seem very hostile to anyone who responds to you. Not sure what the moderators think the word civility means, but many of your posts seem intent on baiting and flaming. The fact that it continues can only mean that for whatever reason they want you to continue to pollute any type of reasoned discussion.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

The only way we could slow the race to the bottom IMO would be to nationalize the healthcare industry and create wage scales with salary caps on them similar to the military which would require nothing less than a Constitutional amendment. People can dance around everything else until they turn blue in the face, but healthcare costs are destroying the economy. If the government is going to be in the market directly at all, it needs to be able to control those expenses which it clearly cannot. The government has to either let the private market deal with it all or they need to take over the entire market--there is no workable in between by my measure.

Look on the bright side. Of the many countries today enjoying better health care at lower costs, it is only Taiwan that can have any claim to having simply moved from Point-A to Point-B. In the rest, the system evolved slowly through various stages and cycles of review and modification. We have a very large system here with a lot of people critically dependent upon it for the their day-to-day health and well-being. We cannot allow sudden shocks and dislocations that shatter the connections between constituent pieces and open up cracks for patients and others to fall through. This is another case where slow and steady will win the race. We are off to a good start with PPACA, but the job will not be done for at least another generation.