Is it Fiscally Responsible To Lower the Medicare Age from 65 to 55?

[Brown 2010!]

I don't know if it is fiscally responsible. Probably not. But it is socially responsible. I guess that sometimes the well being of the society is more important than having a balanced budget.

If the budget is not balanced for too long and the debt becomes greater and greater, it is definitely possible that eventually people (both Americans and foreigners) will stop buying U.S. bonds and stop the U.S. from being able to finance its own debt, which will be extremely detrimental to American society at large.

[Lief]

I don't know if it is fiscally responsible. Probably not. But it is socially responsible. I guess that sometimes the well being of the society is more important than having a balanced budget.

If the budget is not balanced for too long and the debt becomes greater and greater, it is definitely possible that eventually people (both Americans and foreigners) will stop buying U.S. bonds and stop the U.S. from being able to finance its own debt, which will be extremely detrimental to American society at large.

Why would the rest of the world want a global depression worse than the Great Depression?

[Gren]

I don't know if it is fiscally responsible. Probably not. But it is socially responsible. I guess that sometimes the well being of the society is more important than having a balanced budget.

If the budget is not balanced for too long and the debt becomes greater and greater, it is definitely possible that eventually people (both Americans and foreigners) will stop buying U.S. bonds and stop the U.S. from being able to finance its own debt, which will be extremely detrimental to American society at large.

Yours is a quite apocalyptic prediction, isn't it? But anyway, if you believe that the budget should be balanced, just cut military spending. Society's well being is still more important than that. And now don't tell me that to stop wasting money on useless weapons could cause a rise in international terrorism, therefore putting at risk the American society as a whole.

[Brown 2010!]

I don't know if it is fiscally responsible. Probably not. But it is socially responsible. I guess that sometimes the well being of the society is more important than having a balanced budget.

If the budget is not balanced for too long and the debt becomes greater and greater, it is definitely possible that eventually people (both Americans and foreigners) will stop buying U.S. bonds and stop the U.S. from being able to finance its own debt, which will be extremely detrimental to American society at large.

Yours is a quite apocalyptic prediction, isn't it? But anyway, if you believe that the budget should be balanced, just cut military spending. Society's well being is still more important than that. And now don't tell me that to stop wasting money on useless weapons could cause a rise in international terrorism, therefore putting at risk the American society as a whole.

I would have no problem with cutting military spending and cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I would also have no problem with raising taxes on the rich to their pre-1981 levels.

[Senator Dallasfan65]

I don't know if it is fiscally responsible. Probably not. But it is socially responsible. I guess that sometimes the well being of the society is more important than having a balanced budget.

If the budget is not balanced for too long and the debt becomes greater and greater, it is definitely possible that eventually people (both Americans and foreigners) will stop buying U.S. bonds and stop the U.S. from being able to finance its own debt, which will be extremely detrimental to American society at large.

Yours is a quite apocalyptic prediction, isn't it? But anyway, if you believe that the budget should be balanced, just cut military spending. Society's well being is still more important than that. And now don't tell me that to stop wasting money on useless weapons could cause a rise in international terrorism, therefore putting at risk the American society as a whole.

I would have no problem with cutting military spending and cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I would also have no problem with raising taxes on the rich to their pre-1981 levels.

Would such a tax raise effect you?

[Brown 2010!]

I don't know if it is fiscally responsible. Probably not. But it is socially responsible. I guess that sometimes the well being of the society is more important than having a balanced budget.

If the budget is not balanced for too long and the debt becomes greater and greater, it is definitely possible that eventually people (both Americans and foreigners) will stop buying U.S. bonds and stop the U.S. from being able to finance its own debt, which will be extremely detrimental to American society at large.

Yours is a quite apocalyptic prediction, isn't it? But anyway, if you believe that the budget should be balanced, just cut military spending. Society's well being is still more important than that. And now don't tell me that to stop wasting money on useless weapons could cause a rise in international terrorism, therefore putting at risk the American society as a whole.

I would have no problem with cutting military spending and cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I would also have no problem with raising taxes on the rich to their pre-1981 levels.

Would such a tax raise effect you?

No.

[Senator Dallasfan65]

I don't know if it is fiscally responsible. Probably not. But it is socially responsible. I guess that sometimes the well being of the society is more important than having a balanced budget.

If the budget is not balanced for too long and the debt becomes greater and greater, it is definitely possible that eventually people (both Americans and foreigners) will stop buying U.S. bonds and stop the U.S. from being able to finance its own debt, which will be extremely detrimental to American society at large.

Yours is a quite apocalyptic prediction, isn't it? But anyway, if you believe that the budget should be balanced, just cut military spending. Society's well being is still more important than that. And now don't tell me that to stop wasting money on useless weapons could cause a rise in international terrorism, therefore putting at risk the American society as a whole.

I would have no problem with cutting military spending and cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I would also have no problem with raising taxes on the rich to their pre-1981 levels.

Would such a tax raise effect you?

No.

Then of course you have no problem with it.

[Vice P. Marokai Blue]

I don't know if it is fiscally responsible. Probably not. But it is socially responsible. I guess that sometimes the well being of the society is more important than having a balanced budget.

If the budget is not balanced for too long and the debt becomes greater and greater, it is definitely possible that eventually people (both Americans and foreigners) will stop buying U.S. bonds and stop the U.S. from being able to finance its own debt, which will be extremely detrimental to American society at large.

Yours is a quite apocalyptic prediction, isn't it? But anyway, if you believe that the budget should be balanced, just cut military spending. Society's well being is still more important than that. And now don't tell me that to stop wasting money on useless weapons could cause a rise in international terrorism, therefore putting at risk the American society as a whole.

I would have no problem with cutting military spending and cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I would also have no problem with raising taxes on the rich to their pre-1981 levels.

Would such a tax raise effect you?

No.

Then of course you have no problem with it.

You say it like that is somehow a problem.

[ARescan]

No, getting rid of Medicare is fiscally responsible.

Social Security as well.

[Senator Franzl]

No, getting rid of Medicare is fiscally responsible.

Social Security as well.

I suppose 80 year olds should apply for a job at Wal-Mart if they weren't able to earn enough money for their retirement before they turned old?

[true liberty]

fiscally responsible... medicare...

NO!

[Beet]

Yes, the Medicare Age should be lowered from 65 to 18.

The issue is not the age cut off, the issue is the size of the benefits offered.

[Vepres]

No, getting rid of Medicare is fiscally responsible.

Social Security as well.

I suppose 80 year olds should apply for a job at Wal-Mart if they weren't able to earn enough money for their retirement before they turned old?

That's a great idea! As a heartless small government proponent, I can totally agree with this! [/sarcasm]

[opebo]

I won't jump into the same old debate - I'm sure everyone knows where I stand.

But I would like to point out that this is simply not such a big deal from a practical standpoint.  Nearly all on the Right and many on the Left or in the middle act like it is very difficult to do these sorts of changes.  It isn't difficult in a practical sense - the money is there, in the pockets of the wealthy and upper-middle-class, the models are there, overseas.  What is lacking is just the political power to make it happen - the health care mafia (those same doctors/drugs companies who are overbilling medicare, Torie, along with the insurance companies) just has too much power, and poors have absolutely none.

My point is - of course there will never be health care for poors, at least in our lifetimes, but the reason is clearly not because it is difficult.  Its just not what They want.

[ARescan]

No, just get rid of it.