[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20070306" target="_blank">Our Crops to Water</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> March 06, 2007

I saw an incredible story on \"60 Minutes\" last Sunday. They interviewed the Comptroller-General of the United States, and he had really disturbing things to day. <br> <br>America, he said, is heading towards almost certain bankruptcy unless certain things change- and soon. The government is simply too large, there are too many social programs, healthcare is absurdly expensive to maintain, too many people are getting old. There are not nearly enough taxes to pay for all of this. As the years go on, either taxes will have to be raised dramatically, programs will have to be massively gutted, or we can all just embrace some form of economic collapse. <br> <br>It made me think about Canada, where our healthcare system is even more vast and expensive and we have an ever-increasing flux of overseas immigrants to deal with. We take so much for granted today. We view the welfare state as being an inherently natural thing. We have decided we \"deserve\" free healthcare and all the rest, and get very angry when people propose cuts. My generation has inherited that mentality, but we\'ll also have to embrace the legacy of where such thinking can lead.

[Mr_Canada old]

Well, if Amerika fell, we'd fall anyway.... Fucking dependency...

[sandorski]

Canada has taken steps to avoid that. OTOH, the Bush Admin has taken steps that almost guarantees that. Tax Cuts, Deficit Spending, Drug Program that can't negotiate Bulk Pricing, and more.

It's a US problem, not a Canada problem.

[Canadaka]

Yes and unlike the US, Canada has a budget in the green, rather than billions in deficit and rising.

[Kjorteo]

I've been hearing scary warnings that the baby boomers are on the verge of retiring and there's simply too many of them for Social Security to handle it and blah blah blah for 20 years now. Exactly when is it supposed to happen?

[Canadian_Mind]

its already starting, should be in full swing by 2012, just 5 years from now, especially considering many want to retire early.

we can survive, but the US is fucked.

[Kjorteo]

Fantastic.

[Canadian_Mind]

yea, comforting thought eh?

[Psudo]

I'm skeptical of problems said to be coming soon. I'm also skeptical when the article says the man heralding the problem is "Like an Old Testament prophet". It sounds like modern soothsaying to me. Even respected professionals can't predict the future with surety.

It's also unnerving that this Clinton-appointee takes careful care to criticize every Bush-supported spending policy. Yes, even Republicans are critical of Bush's spending, but "The prescription drug bill was probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s," seems a bit over the top. Worse than Carter's inaction on stagflation, Reagan's military spending race, and all the money the Middle East has cost us in 50 years? It smacks of partisanship.

Which isn't to say he's wrong, just that I'm skeptical. I do recognize many specific economic problems facing the United States in coming years, and the magnitude of US government spending pisses me off. But given our GDP that is about 4.5 times as large as the national budget and growing in proportion all the time, I find it highly unlikely that economic collapse is imminent. I think massive spending cuts are more likely, and I'd like that to happen.

[fire_i]

Well, even if this 'phenomenom' was somehow limited to the USA and didn't affect Canada, we'd still be screwed to no end. There's no US, there's no Canada, it's that simple. And it's not tomorrow we'll be able to go on a massive rebalancement of our trade partnerships, even if we *knew* the USA's economy would crash and bring ours along with it. Basically it's certain we'll face a bad economic problem too, and soon, unless the US fix their situation.

And we all know they won't, we wouldn't either anyway. With the current system, the greater interest of the country is buried far under (in order of 'importance') the interests of the leading party, the interest of the leading party's members and the interests of the country in the next four years *only*. You just don't see any politician act for the best of the country 20 years from his mandate ; they don't actually want the best of the country, they just want to be elected, and subsequently re-elected (or, if they can't get re-elected anymore, then they'll probably just try to get at least their party re-elected anyway). And the best way to be elected remains to please the short-term needs of every idiot down there. You don't need a plan, just to say what people want to hear, no matter how wrong it is. And right now, people don't want to hear about what's going to happen in 30 years.

Now, of course, one day, someone will be elected to fix that problem, that's for sure. If the controller-general's estimations are correct, then I'd say that'll happen around... 2025, when bankruptcy will be looming juuuuust ahead of everyone, and they'll know THEY will get it right in the teeth, well then everyone will want a miracle to happen. Evidently it'll be way too late already. I can't wait to see which scapegoat will be sacrificed that time.

Basically, forget it, we're all toast already. Buy gold inlets and hide them under your mattress or something, because you'll need them.

We'd need a radical reform of the occidental democratic system to actually give power to anyone with a semblance of beginning of slight interest for the future, and not just the 5 to 10 years lying in front of him.

I must say however that not all is lost. While no one will have the guts to prevent the problem, chances are high it won't be as bad as we might think, since I doubt not a single action will be taken to correct the situation - at least when disaster is too close for comfort. That'll be far from enough, but it's at least that.

Now, if only some people out there could prove me wrong, both in the US and Canada...

[tritium]

Kjorteo wrote:

I've been hearing scary warnings that the baby boomers are on the verge of retiring and there's simply too many of them for Social Security to handle it and blah blah blah for 20 years now. Exactly when is it supposed to happen?

Now this kind of reminds me of Logan's Run.

I am sure this is way before your time.

Quote:

Logan's Run is a novel by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson. Published in 1967, it depicts a dystopian future society in which population and the consumption of resources is managed and maintained in equilibrium by the simple expediency of killing everyone upon reaching a particular age, thus neatly (and, according to the story's moral, "inhumanely") avoiding the issue of overpopulation which was of growing concern at the time. The story follows the actions of Logan, a Deep Sleep Operative or "Sandman", as he "runs" from society's lethal

http://www.transparencynow.com/Logan/logtable1.htm

[ejacksonian]

Psudo wrote:

I'm skeptical of problems said to be coming soon. I'm also skeptical when the article says the man heralding the problem is "Like an Old Testament prophet". It sounds like modern soothsaying to me. Even respected professionals can't predict the future with surety.

It's also unnerving that this Clinton-appointee takes careful care to criticize every Bush-supported spending policy. Yes, even Republicans are critical of Bush's spending, but "The prescription drug bill was probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s," seems a bit over the top. Worse than Carter's inaction on stagflation, Reagan's military spending race, and all the money the Middle East has cost us in 50 years? It smacks of partisanship.

Which isn't to say he's wrong, just that I'm skeptical. I do recognize many specific economic problems facing the United States in coming years, and the magnitude of US government spending pisses me off. But given our GDP that is about 4.5 times as large as the national budget and growing in proportion all the time, I find it highly unlikely that economic collapse is imminent. I think massive spending cuts are more likely, and I'd like that to happen.

I don't think there's going to be spending cuts. When it comes to social security, most people in the USA would refuse to have cut in the program. It's like Highways - they would rather see a tax increase to fund Social Security (and Highways) than see cut in Social Security (and Highways).

People are tax-adverse, that I give you, but they are spending-cut-adverse.

[USCAdad]

ejacksonian wrote:

I don't think there's going to be spending cuts. When it comes to social security, most people in the USA would refuse to have cut in the program. It's like Highways - they would rather see a tax increase to fund Social Security (and Highways) than see cut in Social Security (and Highways).

People are tax-adverse, that I give you, but they are spending-cut-adverse.

Damn and I thought it was just me. I want to spend more without working any harder... too bad the world can't accomodate me.

I think Social Security should be scrapped. It won't last until I'm on it. It will only benefit the generations that have put us in this position. It's their policies that put us here, it's them that should pay.

[ejacksonian]

USCAdad wrote:

ejacksonian wrote:

I don't think there's going to be spending cuts. When it comes to social security, most people in the USA would refuse to have cut in the program. It's like Highways - they would rather see a tax increase to fund Social Security (and Highways) than see cut in Social Security (and Highways).

People are tax-adverse, that I give you, but they are spending-cut-adverse.

Damn and I thought it was just me. I want to spend more without working any harder... too bad the world can't accomodate me.

I think Social Security should be scrapped. It won't last until I'm on it. It will only benefit the generations that have put us in this position. It's their policies that put us here, it's them that should pay.

I think you are getting a wrong impression. I don't necessary think there should be more spending. I'm just stating what's the general opinion of the mass base.

[Psudo]

Pres. Reagan made a deal with Democrats that he would raise taxes if $2 in spending was cut for every $1 raised by the tax increase. The tax increase went through, and the spending cut bill never came.

I'd like to see a similar deal be reached (and followed this time) where defense and welfare spending are both cut in proportion. Democrats would get the defense spending cuts they want, and Republicans would get the welfare spending cuts they wanted, and (most importantly) the overall budget might actually see a significant reduction in size. How unprecedented would that be!

Also: Yes, ejacksonian, I realize there's very little chance of it, but it'd be smart and good if they did.