The purpose of the government is to protect the people. healthcare, as some say, falls under the role of the government. But what happens when the government and the nation can't afford it? Right now in the last year Bush and Obama have spent about 1.8 trillion. There is no plan on how to pay for the spending, other than obama saying the economy in the next 5 years is going to grow 4% which will then pay for the spending. That sounds like a lot of hope there. So how can the government write a bill that will cost 1 trillion in the next 10 years?
Should the government just say, "nope, we can't afford healthcare right now"? It seems to me that is the only reasonable option, and it really isn't a very good one.
How much is too much for a government to spend? This is going way past even what Kenyes was thinking. Can the US handle this debt?
Who and what can we tax and cut to afford all this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
it is i think less a question about what we can afford but where our priorities lie.
ReplyDeleteI heard an interesting question raised this morning and i wondered what your take on it is. A caller on NPR was wondering why people don't accuse the gov't of socialism when it comes to education, transportation or hospitals. I was wondering your thoughts on that.
very true about priorities. They are a little off.
ReplyDeleteThis is going to sound nerdy and lame, but i have kind of written up a paper about why socialism is acctually worse for the poor. I was planning on sending it to you so you can look over it and tell me where i'm right and wrong. and I talk about education in that.
about transportation, people do call Amtrak socialist along with GM and other mass transit. people do accuse transportation as being socialist. I think the reason why the national government handles the highway system is because it crosses state lines. (I wonder how well the super-highway system has helped in businesses, granted it was built for the military)