majorspark wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: We are? Please show me evidence to back this ridiculous claim.

To call the possiblity of bankruptcy ridiculous, only shows your ignorance concerning our long term financial situation. If we stay our course without making significant changes to reduce spending or increase some taxes then we will eventually be brought to that milestone.

Well known economists and politicians alike are sending out the warning.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/07/10/movement_warns_of_us_bankruptcy/

This article was written in July, 2008 Since this time the federal debt has increased 30%.

WASHINGTON - A new nationwide campaign is warning Americans that unless the federal government puts its financial house in order, the country could be bankrupt in a generation.

The project, organized by Peter G. Peterson, an investment banker who served as commerce secretary in the Nixon administration, and David M. Walker, the former comptroller general of the United States, aims to build grass-roots support for wholesale changes to the federal budget - though the overhaul would require middle- and upper-income Americans to give up some cherished government benefits.

Peterson and Walker said yesterday that the campaign, sponsored by the nonpartisan Peter G. Peterson Foundation in New York, will kick off next week with a documentary called "I.O.U.S.A," the first salvo in an aggressive, multimillion dollar effort that will include television advertisements and Internet outreach.

Peterson, the foundation president, and Walker, the chief executive, said the widening gap between government revenues and spending will eventually destroy the confidence in the American economy that has led international lenders to continue to finance the national debt.

"We are going to get a crisis like most Americans have never seen," Walker said during a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor.

The national debt is now more than $9 trillion.

Government budget analysts predict, however, that at the current pace of government spending the national debt could balloon to more than 250 percent of the gross domestic product by 2040.

Entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare simply will not be able to keep pace with the estimated 77 million members of the baby boomer generation now beginning to retire, Peterson and Walker contend.

About 10,000 baby boomers will become eligible for Social Security benefits each day for the next two decades, and the government already spends more than $4 on older Americans for every dollar spent on children's education, healthcare, and other basic needs.

If changes are not made soon, new generations of Americans face either crippling tax increases or Draconian cuts in government programs, Peterson and Walker warned. And the result will be sharply higher interest rates; a weaker dollar; higher prices for oil, food, and other necessities; and greater unemployment, according to a new foundation publication called "The State of the Union's Finances - A Citizen's Guide."

Government programs that are required by law, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps, account for more nearly two-thirds of the federal budget. In other words, "62 percent of the budget is on autopilot and it increases every year," said Walker.

The mandatory spending on entitlement programs is ballooning so quickly that "there is no discretionary spending left in 20 to 25 years," Walker said, for needs such as highway maintenance and defense programs.

Heading off disaster will require reining in wasteful and lower priority programs, Peterson said, pointing out that government benefits were originally designed as a safety net for the poorest Americans and that more prosperous Americans who have also grown accustomed to them will have to make sacrifices.

A big target for change must be bringing down the cost of healthcare, a major contributor to higher Medicare costs, according to Walker who as comptroller general oversaw the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

Peterson and Walker said they hope their message will echo on the presidential campaign trail this year.

The foundation plans to meet with advisers to John McCain and Barack Obama and will be evaluating the candidates' policy proposals.

"We are going to do our best to try to make sure it is an issue in the presidential campaign," Walker said.

CenterBHSFan wrote: 2. Why should we be thankful for socialized medicine?

bigmanbt wrote: And we are going bankrupt from that, and this might be worse.

Sage wrote: And no, it's not a Republican vs. Democrat thing.

It's a Common Sense vs. Stupidity kind of thing.

It's refreshing to be the ones fucking for once after 8 years of being strong-armed by George Bush.

-----------------------------------------

It won't be a perfect switch and the new system won't be perfect. It will, however, be much better than our current system, which is unresponsive to millions of Americans. I look at health care as a civil right, so yea.

------------------------------------------

Also, THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ENDORSED THIS PLAN. Think about that for one second. Put your keyboard down and actually process that information. Then get back to me.

Sage wrote:
[size=large]DONT TELL REPUBLICANS BUT WE'RE ALREADY BANKRUPT[/size]

Sage wrote: I don't see "everything" as a civil right, but health care is definitely one of them. Sorry, we're all human beings, and living in the richest country in the history of the world, I think we can afford this. Tens of millions of people are one ambulance away from bankruptcy.

Like I said, once your tears turn into ass cancer, I think you'll be pleased with the new system.

Sage wrote: I don't see "everything" as a civil right, but health care is definitely one of them. Sorry, we're all human beings, and living in the richest country in the history of the world, I think we can afford this. Tens of millions of people are one ambulance away from bankruptcy.

Like I said, once your tears turn into ass cancer, I think you'll be pleased with the new system.

It’s government-run health care.

Despite the fact that the federal health insurance plan (a.k.a. the “public option”) is now gone from the bill, Republicans and conservative groups have continued to claim that the bill institutes a system like the one in the United Kingdom, or Canada, or otherwise amounts to a government takeover. It doesn’t. A pure government-run system was never among the leading Democratic proposals, much to the chagrin of single-payer advocates. Instead, the bill builds on our current system of private insurance, and in fact, drums up more business for private companies by mandating that individuals buy coverage and giving many subsidies to do so. There would be increased government regulation of the insurance industry, however, to require companies to cover preexisting conditions, for example. These “government-run” claims have also included heavy criticism of health care in the U.K., such as the outrageous assertion by former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop that seniors would be “too old” to qualify for artificial joints and pacemakers in the U.K. The majority of those getting joint replacements and pacemakers in the U.K. are, not surprisingly, seniors.

fish82 wrote: I'm glad sage finally spoke up and eased my fears about the country being able to afford this. I feel all better now.

"This is what change looks like," Obama said later in televised remarks that stirred memories of his 2008 campaign promise of "change we can believe in."

"We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people."

BCSbunk wrote: Move those goalposts a little further why don't ya?

The post that I responded too made a claim that we are going bankrupt.

I stated to show evidence of that.

Now you move the goalpost from we are going bankrupt to It is possible that we can go bankrupt. That is a fail.

Sage wrote: We're the richest country in the world guys. I think we can afford it.

Also, love how you're all fiscal conservatives now. I must have missed that call during the Iraq War drum up and the subsequent tax-cuts.

Sage wrote: We're the richest country in the world guys. I think we can afford it.

Also, love how you're all fiscal conservatives now. I must have missed that call during the Iraq War drum up and the subsequent tax-cuts.

majorspark wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: Move those goalposts a little further why don't ya?

The post that I responded too made a claim that we are going bankrupt.

I stated to show evidence of that.

Now you move the goalpost from we are going bankrupt to It is possible that we can go bankrupt. That is a fail.

There is evidence everywhere that if the federal government does not make significant changes in spending and continue the course it is on. It will go bankrupt and not be able to meet its financial obligations. Maybe the poster you responded to has lost all hope than the feds are going to change. Therefore he believes it is inevitable.

Why don't forget about your little goalposts and provide some evidence showing us that the federal government is not on a course for bankrupcy and a failure to meet is finacial obligations.