Poor morality equals poor economy
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z284fv-3xTo&feature=player_profilepage[/youtube]We have come to this point of economic peril because long ago we passed the point of moral peril. In pure economic terms, nearly 60 million less consumers are in the marketplace today owing to surgical abortion.
All of these people would have been under 40 and thus the vast, vast majority would have been taxpaying, buying, and spending consumers creating jobs and holding jobs.
But with their absence the money to pay into the top heavy social programs of social security and medicare simply isn’t there. America is going bankrupt because there are too many bills and not enough cash.
~ Michael Voris, Real Catholic TV, August 9
Aug.12, 2011 6:00 am |
Health care, Population |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I thought one of the primary claims against abortion here is that people use it as birth control in place of responsible sexual behavior (that, presumably, would not produce unwanted offspring)? Following this criticism, doesn’t it stands to reason that in the absence of legal, accessible abortion, many people would have practiced safer sex (or even abstinence) in the first place and therefore a significant number of those 60 million aborted fetuses would never have been conceived at all? You can’t really claim that there are 60 million missing people in the economy in that case.
Active fantasy life ya got there. Many more humans have died than the 60 million estimate in this country. Aborted children are dead children, missing the same as all other dead human beings are missing. Of course, being human, as evidenced by abortion advocates, is not the same as being humane.
in the absence of legal, accessible abortion, many people would have practiced safer sex (or even abstinence) in the first place
Wow…never thought I’d hear a pro-abort admit that. Abortion encourages unsafe, irresponsible (and immoral) sex, resulting in the so-called “need” for abortion! Yes, Joan, it does!!
Joan, you are right that we can’t be sure if Roe v. Wade never happened if there would be exactly 60 million more people in the US. We will also never know if any of those 50+ million aborted would have developed a new technology, gotten married and had children, enjoyed a summer taking classes in France, been eagerly waiting for NFL preseason games to begin tonight, wishing brothers and sisters happy birthday this evening, struggling to make ends meet in this economy, excited or depressed about school starting up in a few weeks, spending the weekend swimming at the lake. A world of potential destroyed for the fleeting desires of the moment. We can always change our future, but we unfortunately can’t take back the past. And it’s clear today we are paying for mistakes in the past, and still digging an even deeper hole for generations to come.
i have always loved the saying “what of we’ve aborted the cure for cancer”
i have always loved the saying “what of we’ve aborted the cure for cancer”
What of we’ve aborted the next Adolph Hitler?
@h: That’s great except that the obvious answer is, “What if we’ve aborted the next Ted Bundy?” The “what if” sword cuts both ways which makes it a really crappy argument against abortion.
As to Voris’ comments, while he is right that 50 million would-be consumers who were murdered before they were born certainly isn’t doing the economy any good, it is–unsurprisingly, when talking about the economy–an oversimplification to pin all America’s financial woes down to that cause. We are in this fiscal fix because, for the past ~60 years, presidents and congresses have spent more money than the US makes and borrowed from other sources to make up the difference. Given the way Congress spends money, and has spent it for ages now, the US was headed for trouble like this no matter what our population was.
ya my liberal pal Paul always says “you are only aborting criminals and doctors cops nurses artists good and loving mothers and fathers priests and rabbis dancers singers
my quotations should have ended with criminal. don’t. forget teachers special ed workers scientists actors actresses figure skaters. oh yeah I’m sure all 75 million aborted people would be criminals! o and artists and musicians
…and with those “extra” 75 million individuals in the world needing to be raised, we wouldn’t have seen many of the contributions women have made to science, politics and the arts. Whoops, argument fail!
and how many more grown women would be alive today? oh mercy the insanity of choice
Are you saying that women cannot be both mothers and contribute to science, politics and the arts, Megan? Are you saying only mothers are responsible for raising children?
No, she’s saying that motherhood is inferior to contributing to science, politics and the arts. Motherhood is a meager contribution to the world, if any contribution at all. Scientists, artists, and politicians simply spawn themselves, full-grown. No need of mothering.
She’s also saying we can only further ourselves as women in society on the backs of our dead and dismembered children – something our founding feminist foremothers absolutely, indisputably disagreed with.
right Jen and praxedes why would motherhood be important?
ooo Kelly good pointed
i have a question isn’t. there a link between abortion and social security going broke?
Hey Heather,
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL01/laura.html
“No, she’s saying that motherhood is inferior to contributing to science, politics and the arts. Motherhood is a meager contribution to the world, if any contribution at all. Scientists, artists, and politicians simply spawn themselves, full-grown. No need of mothering.”
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m merely pointing out that every decision has a trade-off. It’s undeniable that many of the “would-have-been” mothers and caretakers entered the workforce instead of focusing their attention on children (or another child). Boo-hooing about 75 million “missing” people denies the contributions women who chose not to parent have made to the economy.
By the way, countries like Afghanistan and Mali have high fertility rates but their economies aren’t exactly soaring. Oh but I guess abortion caused those problems too.
wow Carla that was a great read! i seemed to remember Jill posting about it it a while ago. so it is true _thank you. for taking the time to post itn
Megan you sound so cold. i wouldn’t be upset or berate any woman who pays into the economy because I’m one of them
and. I’m not crazy about my sister in law but she chose not to be a mother
she has her husband and her dog
she’s 41 now and she’s just waiting on menopause
forgot to mention that she wanted to be a working woman and she really just dislikes kids
Wow, the whole locker room of proaborts has been turned loose, which always means that the issue is a threat to them. Voris has struck a nerve.
Ladies,
Those of you who killed your babies and are unrepentant need to give it up. You aren’t animated by ignorance, but by viciousness, and the desperate need to diffuse your guilt by adding the blood of your child to the blood of 53 million other babies. It won’t work, as is evidenced by your collective thousands of hours of coming here to push your point.
Why not contact Carla privately and begin your journey home? Despite what you may believe about how much better your lives are for having killed your children, the reality is that scores of thousands of mothers attend college, then graduate school, advancing themselves and their families as they go. You swallowed the lie. They didn’t.
No amount of arguing the facts is going to aid you in your journey back to reclaiming your tattered dignity, or reconciliation with yourself and your lost child. Those are the functions of logic and reason, which are not what animates you, as your thousands of posts ably demonstrate. Your arguments are suffused with appeal to emotion, using reason as a cover.
God is waiting with infinite love and mercy, and Carla can show you the way home.
“The hand that rocks the craddle rules the world” yeah, woman gained *so* much by working 9-5 instead of rocking craddles….
so well put Dr. nasal!
sorry for the typo Dr nasal. my husband and his sister. come from different mothers and one time they didn’t speak for 7 years. Debbie is pro abortion and did have 2 or 3 abortions. she’s in need of healing because her 14 year marriage. is on the skids. she knows how i feel abou
My mother taught me how to write, and not merely write but to write legibly, in cursive. Everything that I did well in school, I learned first from my mother. She was no slouch.
Abortion advocates insult my mother when they assume that because she had children, she didn’t contribute enough to society. She had a highly skilled job before she retired, one that some of you wouldn’t be able to perform. Oh, I’m sooooo sorry that she didn’t get on Good Morning America with some fancy-pants prize to make all the feminazis happy. I’m sooooo sorry that she did her part in this world and the people around her took it for granted. That’s not her fault, and it’s not because she gave birth. Abortion fans take a lot of people for granted, most certainly their own mothers.
storry for the typo Dr nasal. my husband and his sister. come from different mothers and one time they didn’t speak for 7 years. Debbie is pro abortion and did have 2 or 3 abortions. she’s in need of healing because her 14 year marriage. is on the skids. she knows how i feel about abortion but she will always say “sometimes these things are for the best” we leave it at that. she’s also an Obama supporter and blames bush
aaaaaaagh i did it again Dr nadal
my husband isn’t speaking to her again he told her she was selfish and greedy after she asked him to foot the bill for her husband s lawyer. this woman’s loaded but always cries the poor mouth.
h.
That’s okay. Dr. Nasal works too! Especially during Hay Fever season!! :-)
“Your arguments are suffused with appeal to emotion, using reason as a cover.”
Spare me. This was a thread devoted to an article about abortion and the economy, but how many commenters have derailed the discussion to whine that I’m denigrating motherhood? Some rational debate, ha.
Let’s start over. Mr. Voris claims that abortion ruined the economy because there are supposedly 50 million less people in the world to produce and consume goods. But if you want to make the analysis more “complete” (and really, I’m being generous here since the connection falls flat in so many other places), you can’t just discount the contributions that women made to the economy by working. Some women chose to enter the workforce over having children. In this way they boosted the economy. I’m not arguing that women can’t have kids and work–they can. Many do choose one over the other. But apparently Mr. Voris only thinks women are good for breeding, otherwise he would’ve devoted more attention to this trade-off in his “analysis.”
ninek. very well put i love my mom for the gift of life and all the love and laughter I’ve had in my life
Ninek,
I spent years, and years, and years, and years in college, then graduate school for a total of four degrees. They aren’t even dust in the balance when weighed against our three children.
I worked long and hard to achieve high academic rank, and none of it, NONE of it is so important as to merit the slaughter of a baby! Only those whose judgement is clouded by desperation and a lack of vision could ever think such a thing as killing a child in order to “contribute.”
It’s a false dichotomy that they fall for. My BEST students in college were the mothers who came to get a job done and then run off to pick the kids up from daycare or school. Your mother and mine chose the wisest and most fruitful path. One good mother outweighs a truckload of doctors, lawyers and indian chiefs.
If she’s still alive, give her a kiss for me. She has contributed more to the world than words can ever express.
Conversely Gerry, why would you spend thousands and thousands of hours obsessing over what happens in women’s bodies, especially when you don’t seem to bat an eye that the US kills (born) children every day in countless global wars? Why just the womb obsession, hmm? Why no concern about lax gun laws that kill so many kids every year? Or gay teens who commit suicide because they can’t see an end to the bitterness they’re treated with every day from people of a supposedly “higher” moral character? Where’s your outrage?
Megan,
Your argument falls flat because it is predicated on a false dichotomy. You fail to take into account those working mothers who went to school while raising families and contributed on both fronts. It isn’t either/or, as you suggest.
It’s both/and.
Therefore, Voris is quite correct in his analysis.
On a personal note, Mike Voris and I were seminary classmates. Having lived, studied, worked and prayed together, I know the man well. We both came of age in the crucible of a shared life, in the same house, same classes. There isn’t a misogynistic bone in his body. It is you who comes here snarling and dripping with contempt for those with whom you disagree. It was you who discounted the contributions of working mothers and perpetuated the false dichotomy.
As I said, Megan, the death of your baby wasn’t worth the trade. Call Carla and Come Home.
i liked what blogger jacquie said once. she. said “i don’t care if you don’t want me i want me”!!
Well, Megan, in answer to your assertion of womb-obsession, I actually spent seven years of my life working with homeless teens in Times Square, NY during the 1980’s. Most were trying to escape prostitution, which for teens is sex slavery.
On the issue of thousands of children around the world, I have helped to promote, as a microbiologist, the cause of developing safe, potable water in the third world, as well as promoting simple treatments to curb the deaths of children from diarrheal diseases.
On gay teens, my last two years working at Covenant House were on the Special Needs Unit, which was the only residential treatment facility in the US at the time for adolescents with HIV/AIDS. I spent night after night sitting up with frightened teens who were dying, at a time when even the medical community considered HIV patients as lepers.
Get well soon.
Edited by mod
Gerry,
I edited your last comment. Those words never help a post abortive mom.
I do have Megan in my thoughts and prayers so much of the time. But don’t tell her I said that. It’s just between you and me, right, Dr. Nadal?? (Dr. Nasal has a nice ring to it)
And so I wait for the Megan’s of the world.
How anyone can take anything Voris says seriously is incredible!
It is nigh on impossible to even remotely estimate how many additional children would have been born if abortions had remained illegal. Many people would have just had illegal abortions. Some would have border-hopped to have abortions. Some would have been more careful to not get pregnant. And some would have had more children, some of which would have required additional welfare spending. Some would have made contributions to society, some would have been a burden through crime, drugs etc.
So to say that there would be an extra 53 million, or 60 million or whatever tax-paying, buying, spending workers is close to ludicrous. It may have been 5 million, or 10 million, who knows. It sure wouldn’t have been 60 million.
Just think of how happy the Republicans would be to have so many more kids to deny health care to, or cut school funding for – they would love it!
Thanks Carla!
Reality,
You are quite correct that some of those people would have ended up as criminals, and some who would have ended up on welfare. There is simply no arguing that point.
So the solution, then, is a preemptive execution for the crime of being needy, or for the potential of criminal behavior?
Even the welfare kids and future criminals need to be fed, housed, educated, etc. That means additional teachers, more purchase of food, etc. So here, your argument also fails.
Now, Reality and Ex-GOP, tell me how compassionate the Democrats are, and how Draconian the Republicans are, especially in light of your desire to preemptively execute those you consider a drain on society.
I think you may have missed the main thrust of my point Gerard. Voris claims that without legal abortion there would be an extra 60 million people producing, consuming and paying taxes. I find this claim extremely spurious and guess (that would be guess) that given what would actually occur in regards to birthrates etc., the real figure could be 5 to 10 million.
“So the solution, then, is a preemptive execution for the crime of being needy, or for the potential of criminal behavior?” – I made no such suggestion. I have no idea how many would have been murderers and how many would have been Nobel Laureates.
Yeah, yeah, teachers, food etc. etc. There is also the fact that things such as the ‘war on drugs’ has brought about a massive level of incarceration. Yep, we need warders etc. etc. But that fact is that a high incarceration rate lowers the effective rates of production and consumption as well as tax paying.
Many modern western countries have much better results in regard to crime, incarceration, teen pregnancy and various other ‘social ills’. The fact that some have taken steps to the ‘far right’ of late is more indicative of the negative impacts of large levels of non-integrating and non-contributing immigrants. Without this factor most would still be highly successful social-democratic states.
The old ‘crumbs from the table’ philosophy is one of the greatest fallacies foisted on society.
“your desire to preemptively execute those you consider a drain on society.” – again, you misrepresent me. I support choice as a woman by woman decision for their own circumstances.
whoever named a smart phone a smart phone was not smart!aaaagh it’s the darn keyboard. it does what it wants ninek kept coming out mimicking??? i finally got nadal! time to go watch boarders!
In pure economic terms, nearly 60 million less consumers are in the marketplace today owing to surgical abortion.
We don’t know if the people that would have resulted from abortion not being legal would be a net positive for the economy or not.
c what i mean HOARDERS
We are in this fiscal fix because, for the past ~60 years, presidents and congresses have spent more money than the US makes and borrowed from other sources to make up the difference. Given the way Congress spends money, and has spent it for ages now, the US was headed for trouble like this no matter what our population was.
Alice, very good. To presume that extending the “pyramid” or “Ponzi scheme” is necessarily a good thing, is fallacious. The fact is now that we’ve got no shortage of consumers. The problem is that, due to their own tendencies and actions, and indeed – the actions of our gov’t – they have less purchasing power. That and the massive debt the gov’t has run up…. And the unwillingness on the part of politicians to let economic reality -which is sure to get them voted out of office – run its course.
Heather: Isn’t there a link between abortion and social security going broke?
I wonder. Nobody knows, since we don’t don’t know how much of a contribution the people that would have resulted from abortion not being legal would have made. If one is really thinking that we need *more people* then hey – it’s comparitive folly to worry about unwanted pregnancies. Rather, one should encourage the emigration of educated, motivated, energetic individuals from other countries – who can be expected to contribute much, much more.
Reality: So to say that there would be an extra 53 million, or 60 million or whatever tax-paying, buying, spending workers is close to ludicrous. It may have been 5 million, or 10 million, who knows. It sure wouldn’t have been 60 million.
Interesting question. Sure, it’s not a linear deal where we can simply “X” out every abortion that’s occurred and insert a net-contributing member of society. Very far from it.
However, even with the lesser raw number of “more people” that would have resulted, it gets geometric to some extent, i.e. some of the “extra” people would have already had kids and grandkids, and – the way I figure it, with say, 16 years per generation for the “fast” ones – be halfway from grandkids to great-grandkids.
: P
Reality,
So you estimate that out of 60 million aborted, only 5-10% would be productive citizens? I’m not a graduate of Wharton, or the London School of Economics, but even I can see that by your reckoning only 8-16% of those born are productive, contributing members of society.
So, by extrapolation, you are saying that only 8-16% of the present adult population are productive? Can you explain this strange calculus?
“only 5-10% would be productive citizens?” – how on earth did you come to that conclusion? Twisted extrapolation?
“only 8-16% of those born are productive, contributing members of society.” – and where did you get that from? How?
“I’m not a graduate of Wharton, or the London School of Economics” – no you’re certainly not, but neither am I.
Have you missed my point yet again? There would not be 60 million extra people. There may be, lets say, at a guess, 10 million.
Those additional 10 million would have pretty much the same percentage of “productive citizens’ as what we have now.
So the number of additional ‘productive citizens’ would not be a percentage of the 60 million because the 60 million is a spurious and unrealistic figure.
I think you’re the one introducing strange calculus.
The fact is that if you want to have these entitlements, you have to consider reproducing a societal obligation. It was once viewed this way, but those with an abortion mentality, who tend to be the ones also pushing for these entitlements, think it’s perfectly ok to abort 60M+ potential citizens. It makes no sense no matter how you balance the tradeoffs. If you want entitlements you need more citizens paying in than pulling out. And that means children and sacrifice on the part of parents.
Reality,
Okay, stop.
There have been CONSERVATIVELY, 53 million surgical abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade. The upper end is 60 million. So where do you get that there would only be 5-10 million extra people without those abortions?
yeah Dr nadal I’ve heard 75million from alot of the pro lifers i interact with but no matter what one is too many. i never cared to get too involved with the abortion issue for a good while
to me it was like asking someone. about. a death. i was afraid to upset the woman
yet as the years rolled on I’d see woman after woman and hear story after story of wounded women post abortion. they would come to work crying at times and even the hard core proaborts have got to be acting out in pain. my conscious tells me abortion is wrong so i know they also have a conscious that speaks to them tooth
and even the older and hard nosed pro aborts know what they did was wrong
as i told you my sister in law aborted. and i believe deep down she hurts. what if her health goes bad and she’s forced to go to a nursing home? what if her husband dies? all that’s. left is her dog. her home is paid for but the nursing home takes everything from you. we both have strong personalities and that’s why i don’t say much. we will end up in a fight and she’s not worth it. however she may live to regret those abortions when she dies a lonely old ladyship _
should. say old lady. her. big driving force is money. she has plenty yet it’s never. enough and every pay day her husband has to give her his check. now he needs a lawyer for a hit skip and i told her “well i guess you had better get to the bank and get that does out for the lawyer”
60 million ain’t even close. With all the lies that surround the abortion industry, I don’t buy even that number. We’re only compelled to use their number because abortion advocates are such ardent and staunch relativists, they won’t believe anyone but their idol Guttmacher. If we quote anyone else, they derail threads with endless deflections and denials. Oh wait, they do that anyway.
Even if a woman got two abortions in one year, so many twins are killed that I don’t find it hard to imagine the numbers even out.
Thank you for your kind words, Dr. Nadal. But it’s too late. We are parted. The worst thing is that she never got over losing her first grandchild. But we had been on loving terms at the end, in which I find a bit of comfort.
Oh, Ex-GOP, you have fallen for the biggest Democratic / choicer (or “chercer”, as Archie Bunker would say) lie. The very fact that many of these children, if lucky enough to not be dismembered by their mothers, might well grow up in poverty proves that pro-lifers care more about life and death than dollars and cents.
The side you crossed over to claimed to have waged a “War On Poverty” but instead waged a war on those in poverty. Just look at all the inner cities, which have been immune to any federal conservative administration. They are all hopeless and changeless, and it is not the fault of champions of life, nor of the Party you left.
Hans – my hope isn’t an either/or hope – my hope is that we would one day have a party that cared about, cherished, and invested in life from conception until death.
You are right – the Dems allow abortion, which doesn’t fit my hope – and the GOP has begun vacating support for both kids and the elderly – which doesn’t fit my hope.
I’ll stick nearer the Party that believes “where there is life, there is hope.”
Our government should support the family – by cutting the strings that encumber them. Slowing expense increases is not “vacating support” for kids and the elderly. Stay out of the way of the economy and the churches and we will take care of our own.
What about those who don’t want to be taken care of by the churches?
Also, can you further clarify what you mean by “cutting the strings that encumber them”? Can you speak specifically on what you mean in regards to things like social security, medicare, medicaid, and health insurance?
“What about those who don’t want to be taken care of by the churches? ”
Develop their own mediating institutions. The rest of us should not be obliged to endure naked exposure to the State merely because statists, deprived of its nanny dominance, turn out to be closet individualists incapable of developing their own communitarian (not to say collectivist) assets. ;-)
Well, I didn’t mean churces only. There are many non-profits for helping the needy.
And I don’t mean cutting the “safety net” – unless and until sane economic policies make them redundant.
By “encumbrances” on families (and individuals) I mean taxes and inefficient, intrusive government. (Intruding on business with over-regulation. such as insisting ANWR stay a “pristine” mosquito-infested wetland.)
Hans – if many of the current GOP hopefuls had their way, we’d get rid of Medicare as soon as possible – we’d scale back Medicaid as soon as possible – and as I’ve seen lately in my home state, when push comes to shove, the current GOP mindset is to cut anything and everything before raising taxes on a single soul – so yeah, I stand by my original statement – “You are right – the Dems allow abortion, which doesn’t fit my hope – and the GOP has begun vacating support for both kids and the elderly – which doesn’t fit my hope.”
Statistically, at least from the scant statistics I’ve been able to find, but most women abort because they don’t believe they are financially ready to care for a child. Making it tougher and more expensive to have good (or any) health care and education is NOT a step in the right direction.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it the Democrats who insisted on a $500 billion cut in Medicare in the Obamacare monstrosity?
Even those on the left – pundits, journalists, and politicians, say that entitlements have to be on the table for debt-reduction talks.
Senator Connie Mack of Florida has an interesting idea of cutting across the board 1% each year. It sounds slow, but I guess that’s how it has to be if we don’t want European / Madison, WI -type unrest.
I think the emphasis then will have to be on tax simplification and energy deregulation.
I’ve been off gallivanting Gerard, but in case you still take a look here – Like I said earlier, making abortions illegal does not stop abortions.
So of those 60 million, some would have had illegal abortions (with the potential for a higher death rate of women, meaning that some women would not have had the children that they may have wanted to have later), some would have ‘border-hopped’ to have abortions and some would have taken greater care not to get pregnant.
And as I repeatedly said, the number I proposed was a guess, I even highlighted the fact that it was a guess.
But there certainly would not be anything like an additional 60 million taxpayers producing and consuming.
The bigger question is how did you come up with those percentages you cited?
Hans – No – that is incorrect (your first statement)
The rest of it – I do think reforms need to happen. Ryan’s plan of eliminating Medicare is a joke. Furthermore, if a GOPer comes in with the promise to balance the budget and not raise taxes – unless they are going to get rid of a good chunk of the military, then I think we’re going to see some massive cuts happen (to those old people welfare programs).
Funny, I thought that Democrat cut was even admitted by non-Fox News outlets. I guess I’ll have to look that up.
How can Ryan’s plan eliminate Medicare if it’s hands-off to anyone older than 55?
Can’t you admit government is bloated enough? We should simplify taxes first: either a flat income or sales tax rate. Say 17%. That would rope in spending to an actual ceiling, not an ever-changing one. Once the economy gets cooking, taxes can fall. It’s immoral to force a few to pay for the mismanagement of our government. It’s only natural they’d want to take advantage of loopholes. You can’t keep squeezing your more successful neigbors.
Hans – Now, I’ve been known to be wrong before – but my understanding is that within Medicare, there are a lot of various programs and how they work, and a program or two is getting revamped/eliminated, which would in effect, save the $500 million. I don’t know if that classifies as a “cut” or not. It also is a decrease in the increase – so less of an increase (fancy political jargon).
Now, on Ryan’s plan – don’t you think it is a bit weird that it is so awesome, and will save people money and what not…yet he doesn’t want to phase it in for 10 years? If it is such a great deal for everyone, why not go to it now? Why put the free market off for 10 more years? My guess is Ryan has seen the numbers people have crunched, and knows that it isn’t all that it is cracked up to be.
Last thought – and I’m not saying yours is bad. I’d rather zero out taxes and then start a conversation. What do we need. Do we need to fund out military? Do we want to maintain social security for seniors? Do we want health care for seniors at the level we have now? And what about the disabled, poor, and elderly? Let’s find out what we want to support, and then put a tax structure in to meet those obligations.
On the last paragraph though – maybe we should just squeeze them at the same amount Reagan squeezed them?
The problem with both sides is that they’re slow and timid to phase in good ideas like tax reform, but quick on the draw on bad ones – like the spending of the last four years.
CT: If you want entitlements you need more citizens paying in than pulling out.
Such a system is always doomed to fail.
As we have it now, the health care – Medicaid and Medicare – benefits are going to have to be cut, and user fees implemented and/or raised. And there are going to be a lot of unhappy campers.
I’ve lived in Canada and “free” means people abuse the system, even going to the doctor just for somebody to talk to. Don’t know if it was implemented, but Canada was thinking about a $5 or $10 charge just to cut down on that kind of stuff.
Social Security – well, the heinous, gutless weasels we’ve had in Congress took the money in the SS trust fund and raided it. Heck, all along, SS has been taking in more than it’s paid out. We’re only now getting to the “break-even” point. Had Congress not taken the money, it would be quite a few more years (decades?) before the really big worries would hit.