Dragging this back to healthcare for just a moment...

Eagle,

You need to read this article. I think it does a good job of addressing your concerns with the law, particularly your concerns regarding job loss, federal takeover of healthcare and the contention that this is better left to the free market. Also see the section about the failure of seven states with that passed healthcare laws and failed because of the lack of an individual mandate.

Would like to know if you'd be willing to re-examine your position on the HRL in the light of this additional information.

Sub-Topic: Evolution.

I want to apologize specifically to DoingHomework, kombat, brad, and galactic as well as anyone else reading the sub-topic of the thread regarding Evolution. I should have given reference to the website I was getting information from. I was wrong. Please accept my humblest apologies.

I have corrected and refferenced the data on the original posts.

Since I don't think there really is any point to further explore this topic [Evolution] I'm moving on. I simply don't think anyone is going to change their minds on this subject.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I was really just curious. Have you ever heard of the Concord Coalition? If so what do you think of that organization?

So as to question #2 we should continue spending more than we make? At which point is that no longer sustainable?




Very interesting ideas kombat. Once again I was just curious as to the ideas out there.

1. Re: Military. While I think pulling out of various countries around the world would be great I wonder what the consequences would be… Not to mention who would fill that vacuum? I wonder what that would do to the economy in the short run. How many people’s jobs rely on active duty or reserve positions? Also, would the UN’s military forces cease to exist overnight? Don’t we fund a majority of the military expeditions endorsed by the UN?

2. Re: Financial Aid. I actually agree this would probably be a good idea. If you can’t handle your own personal budget and bills should you really be giving a ton of money away you don’t have? Aren’t we [the U.S.] closer to $15 or 16 trillion in debt now?

3. Re: Tax Code I like the idea of the tax code. Is that even possible? In other words would Congress ever consider such a change to the law?


4. Re: IRS Less IRS? Seriously wow that would be fantastic! Once again would Congress ever consider passing such a law. Lol.

5. Re: Homeland Security. The problem with eliminating anything government related is the government simply will not dismantle parts of itself voluntarily – even if it is a good solution. The government just assumes that whatever it is doing is needed the government just needs a new person to head it or a tweak to the system. Why not consolidate the CIA, FBI, as well as others like NSA, NIMA, NCS, and NCIS as suggested by General William E. Odom. He’s the author of “Fixing Intelligence For A More Secure America”
Do you agree or disagree?

6. Government Subsidies to Profitable Companies While I agree with this in theory I wonder what the consequences of doing so would be? I mean we aren’t exactly ready to switch, at least economically from my perspective, to an clean energy based economy.

7. Social Security I thought they already raised the age of SS? Isn’t anyone born 1960 or after already set for retirement at 67? In 1935 when SS in the U.S. was put into law and the age for retirement was set at 65 it was expected that people wouldn’t live to the age they live today. Healthier lifestyles including exercise, better quality of food, and greater access to medicine have contributed towards an increasingly aging population. The question is this sustainable with the Baby Boomers all retiring? Don’t get me wrong I want my grandparents and parents to have this coverage (or at least something similar to it). In fact I’d love to be able to receive some of the benefits that I’ve contributed to all my working life. Mayb ethe age will be pushed to 70 or 75 by the time I finally (hopefully) qualify. But I’m not sure that in its current form this system will work.



I'll take a look at it VinTek thanks. Out of curiosity where are you from?

I have not heard of them. But I'll have a look at them. I'm always interested ideas, whether I agree with them or not.

I did answer the question as to what steps I'd take to reduce the deficit, so implying that I'd let them get to the point of being unsustainable is like asking whether or not I've stopped beating my wife. It's a bogus question.

The more detailed answer is that I'd let the deficit remain but confine it to a relatively low percentage of the GDP. The reason I'd entertain the possibility of spending more than we earn is because like for many entities, it's wise to borrow money to invest in things that earn a return. I'll give you a real life example: the interstate highway system. If we'd waited until we had the money to build that, we'd be a much poorer nation. That highway system was a springboard to help commerce and was one of the elements that paved (no pun intended) the way to greatly enhance the movement of goods and services in this country. And that in turn helped to build great prosperity. Paid for at the outset? Nope. Good investment? You bet.

Another reason is that we need the flexibility. If we couldn't borrow money, we would not have had the funding to respond to 9/11 quickly. Or World War II, for that matter. Want another example? Do you think the Internet (born as ARPANET) would be where it is today if we didn't have the ability to borrow money? We haven't not had a national debt since 1836. If we worked to pay off the national debt and stayed there, do you think many of the things we take for granted today would be here? Would we have embarked on the Space Program, which yielded so useful inventions without which much of modern life as we know it would not have been possible?

Of course I think the debt should be controlled. Of course I think it should be reduced from the current levels. But completely eliminating it? Let me ask you a couple of questions, as one MBA to another: do you think that debt has no place for a business? If you think it does have a place, why wouldn't those same reasons apply to a nation?


Born and raised in Southern California.

I liked the example of the interstate highway and agree the debt deficit wouldn’t be as big of an issue if it were a smaller portion of U.S. GDP.



I’m not saying pay off the debt in a day or in a few years. It would be a long term plan to at least get things under control – say $3-5 trillion? Speaking of the Space Program... Curious - didn’t our current administration shut down much of the Space Program? I wonder how much we pay for a trip for our American astronauts to go to outer space. $50 Million a trip?



Debt has a place in business for sure. I don’t disagree there. And just like the interstate highway example sometimes businesses need to generate cash to create a competitive advantage say through innovations or a new product. I’m just not sure this is the best model out there. I wonder if setting up the government as something more along the lines of a credit union would be better?

The thought occurred to me today while reading the following article “Guest Commentary: How Would You Trim the Federal Debt?” by Sara Imhof: http://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-p ... NAodAnEoog

Every citizen in essence becomes part owner in his or her government. Not saying it would work it is just a thought. Instead, in the current model specific individuals and businesses take advantage of the system by collecting from tax payers great sums of interest from the federal government.

To me, it just seems whatever our government is currently doing is passing the buck until next election with short-term planning.

Sunny California nice. Would love to live there but cost of living is a deterrent.

That's easy to say. You are Canadian. YOUR government maintains a bit more fiscal sanity.

But I do agree with you. I want a very strong DoD to defend the US. I'll even go along with cooperative defense with Canada and Mexico. But this crap that politicians of both parties have involved us in for teh last few decades has to end. It is destroying us. Defense spending is a greater threat to National Security than any other current threat!


Pretty much agree. But teh amount of foreign aid we give is not like it used to be and would be affordable if we got our act together.


Aside from my own personal interest, eliminating deductions to increase revenue is just a way of shifting who pays. It's also a political non-starter. Everyone talks about it because they all know it is safe. It will never happen.

I do think we need to increase revenue. But it is more likely to happen simply by leaving the code alone for now and just adjusting rates up. Yes, I just said we should raise taxes. Step 1 is raise everyone's taxes. Step 2 is mess with the code or brackets to change who pays.


But even with your changes teh number of peopel you could eliminate would be small, nowhere near 90%


Sounds interesting...But without the Coast Guard, who would rescue people and maintain navigation equipment? The list goes on. But put me down for eliminating TSA!


Ok.


Already done.

Kombat, don't take my mostly negative comments personally. I agree with your main point - we've got to stop spending and start collecting more taxes. I just think the low hanging fruit is gone and anything you touch will have major repercussions.

Yep. I'm all for an overwhelmingly strong DOD, but I don't think they should be all over the world.


Yep

I agree with massive tax reform, but doubt anything meaningful will happen. The current tax code is by far Congress's favorite tool to encourage/discourage behaviors and to reward or punish friends and enemies. Eliminating most deductions and credits would take away this power.

As much as I'd love it, I don't think the changes would allow that much of a reduction, but we can dream.

I also worry about the short term unemployment if such a major reform were enacted. A large percentage of the IRS agents, accountants, and tax preparers suddenly out of work.


Mostly in favor of eliminating the TSA and streamlining and combining many of the superfluous agencies

Why just to profitable companies? Why not eliminate all subsidies? I don't really want to subsidize something so inefficient it can't make it on its own.


Already done. I'd probably agree to take it even higher.

Eagle, I have tried really hard not to attack your religion. In spite of what you might believe about me, and in spite of some cheap shots I may have taken, usually just to poke fun, I really do try to respect other people's beliefs.

But I don't see any reason to hold back in a debate about non-religious topics if someone's religious beliefs are clouding their judgement or interfering with their ability to think critically and process information intelligently.

In finance discussions this rarely comes up. The most common areas are when it comes to people assuming gender rolls that they may not realize they are doing or accepting the ideas of someone like Dave Ramsey when those ideas are not self-consistent or supported by the evidence of history.

There are in fact a few people on GRS who I have gone "head to head" with in the past when it came to religion yet I completely respect their opinions and I frequently agree with their finance advice. I (and I think those of who I speak) see no reason we can't peacefully coexist, work together to help others here, and even have intelligent conversations about political or intellectual topics.

I feel the same way about you...except...

I have come to realize, because of things you've said, that you belong to a church, or at least a denomination, that clings to a view of themselves and the bible that is not supported by anyone else or by the evidence of history. You think you are the "true church" and the only "true christians." Well, that might be true, but no one else seems to agree with you. At least other denominations take their history in stride, as inconvenient as it is in some cases, and respect others. As an atheist, I have no skin in the game but I can also see things as an outsider and see that much of what you claim is not even what is accepted as the "scholarly" christian theology. No offense intended, but some of the things you've said sound more consistent with the gnostic movement in the 2-4 century than modern christianity. But who am I to tell you which group to identify with.

It is understandable how the kind of closed-minded thinking you have (probably) been raised to use limits your ability to process challenging evidence. For that reason, I find it a bit hard to be too critical of you but I also find it hard to take you seriously in an intellectual debate, which is what I think most of us are trying to have here.

Every single time someone has made a valid point that challenges something you believe you have either ignored it or confronted it with a non-sequitur argument you lifted from somewhere without attribution. Not once that I can find have you directly addressed a challenge to your scientific or historical beliefs with actual evidence. The closest you have come is to cite some authority who shares your beliefs but still does not provide any evidence. You have addressed challenges to your religious beliefs or comments with quotes from the bible that others probably interpret in different ways.

For example, I am not catholic, never have been, never will be. But you challenged kaitlyn and she responded with the response I would expect from and intelligent person who is also religious. She reconciles her beliefs with available evidence. She made coherent comments to your attack on her church with poise. While I share her beliefs no more than I share yours, I find it much easier to respect her ability to think critically about all issues than I do yours. I feel like kaitlyn and I could sit down over a nice dinner and have a great conversation about even the most controversial topics but I think if you and I sat down I'd spend most of the evening wanting to bash my head against the hardest surface around out of frustration.

None of this is to say that I can't coexist with you here and agree with you when you give good financial advice or other good advice (which you often do). But I have come to think that your beliefs and unwillingness to think beyond them is severely limiting you. That may not be something you can help but I hope, because you are clearly an intelligent guy, that you will be able to get past it and think more broadly as you mature.

In any case, I doubt if you even care what I think. I just had to say it.

On of my favorite quotes for "The West Wing"

"Democrats want a weak military spread all over the world. Republicans want them strong but they want to keep them at home."

I think some things have changed in the last 10 years.

Most of those line-item quotes. Like I was saying, I can find quotes in the Bible that support abortion.



This isn't true. The Pope is not the intercessor for the RCC or Christianity as a whole.

If you are asking where do we get the idea for having a Pope: Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

*This gets an asterisk of I'm doing line quotes specifically because you requested this here.



I'll let Pope Paul VI answer that one:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_coun ... um_en.html



1. Not even the Marists say that Mary is divine.

2. Purgatory and Penance: Short version, nothing unclean can enter the presence of God.

(1 Corinthians 3:11-15) "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."

(Matthew 12:32): "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."

This strongly implies that there are people who WILL be forgiven in the world to come but were not in this world, which in turn implies a transitional place where you can earn forgiveness.

3. Indulgences: For full study, please see: APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF POPE PAUL VI INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA: WHEREBY THE REVISION OF SACRED INDULGENCES IS PROMULGATED

Short version, good works go into a "bank" of good works, if you will. This aides those who are in purgatory, who, once they are purified, look after the souls still on Earth.

4.Baptism of infants: Do you honestly blame the Catholic church for wanting to make families who are terrified their children are going to hell feel better (remember, we believe in the stain of Original Sin on the soul)? We have the Rite of Confirmation to cover accepting Jesus with a reasoning mind. Technically, the Sacrament is baptism, not baptism of infants. We have adult baptisms as well.

5. Prayer to the saints: It's prayer with the saints. They have their special causes, and we believe by invoking their name, they will lend their voice with ours to God.



Official Catholic is position is neither. It is through faith and good works that one achieves salvation.

*blushes*

Boy have they! I think I'd agree with the Republicans of old. Not so much either of them now.

For the most part, I want them home (really why do we need troops in Germany still?) When the military does have to go somewhere, I want them to have the ability to go in with vastly overwhelming force, level the place, and leave. None of this "nation building" or "win their hearts" BS that generally doesn't work well.

[/quote]

On getting rid of the debt, I agree with Vintek. We charged a (bipartisan) committee with coming of with a plan. They did. Both parties ignored them. PATHETIC!

I have no opinion of the CC. Like all groups with a political bias, I would question anything they say.

On the budget, I disagree with Vintek here. I think we should balance the budget. I think it is dangerous to do so as a matter of law. But I think we as a people should vote out any member of congress who is part of a congress that passes an unbalanced budget whether they voted for it or not. It is their job to work together as a group to do what is good for the country. If what comes out is not good, they all failed. Period!

*DH briefly hopes the catholic girl is flirting...then he remembers that Billy Joel song...*

How do you determine when a budget is balanced? We have to have a balanced budget here in California, but does anyone doubt that the state is in a terrible fiscal mess? The trouble with the concept of a balanced budget is that people start making overoptimistic projections about revenue and performing other financial black magic.

And then too is the concept of investing and getting a good ROI for your money. I think balancing the budget greatly hampers the ability of the government to invest or deal with unforeseen circumstances (war, natural disasters, etc.). Almost every large corporation I know of uses debt as a tool for greater growth and prosperity. Should the government be denied that tool? I listed a few things in the post above which probably wouldn't exist if we didn't have a national debt. Would we have been better off without them? What about not having the resources to fight WW2?

In all seriousness, I'm philosophically in favor of a balanced budget for the government. But in practice, I think there would be some serious unintended consequences.