Experts warn debt may threaten economy

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Click me!

The DC spending boys and girls are running the country into deeper debt and the American people are following, in many ways, in their own lives. It's sad to see that only 33% of the people want spending cuts to help the deficit. IMO, the debt isn't felt (they don't get a bill other than taxes, they don't pay monthly on it...it's not itemized on their taxes as interest payment) by most Americans. They never see it, so it's OK to keep on spending. I wonder how many would change their tune if they saw a breakdown on their returns that indicated that XX.X went to interest of the debt?

Long article...still reading.

Experts Warn Debt May Threaten Economy By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer
51 minutes ago



You owe $145,000. And the bill is rising every day. That's how much it would cost every American man, woman and child to pay the tab for the long-term promises the U.S. government has made to creditors, retirees, veterans and the poor.


And it's not even taking into account credit card bills, mortgages ? all the debt we've racked up personally. Savings? The average American puts away barely $1 of every $100 earned.

Our profligate ways at home are mirrored in Washington and in the global marketplace, where as a society America spends $1.9 billion more a day on imported clothes and cars and gadgets than the entire rest of the world spends on its goods and services.

A new Associated Press/Ipsos poll finds that barely a third of Americans would cut spending to reduce the federal deficit and even fewer would raise taxes.

If those figures seem out of whack to you, if they seem to cut against the way you learned to handle money, if they seem like a recipe for a national economic nightmare ? well, then, at least you're not alone.

A chorus of economists, government officials and elected leaders both conservative and liberal is warning that America's nonstop borrowing has put the nation on the road to a major fiscal disaster ? one that could unleash plummeting home values, rocketing interest rates, lost jobs, stagnating wages and threats to government services ranging from health care to law enforcement.

David Walker, who audits the federal government's books as the U.S. comptroller general, put it starkly in an interview with the AP:

"I believe the country faces a critical crossroad and that the decisions that are made ? or not made ? within the next 10 years or so will have a profound effect on the future of our country, our children and our grandchildren. The problem gets bigger every day, and the tidal wave gets closer every day."

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan echoed those worries just last week, warning that the federal budget deficit hampered the nation's ability to absorb possible shocks from the soaring trade deficit and the housing boom. He criticized the nation's "hesitancy to face up to the difficult choices that will be required to resolve our looming fiscal problems."

Certainly, there are those who feel such comments bring to mind the preachers who predict the end of the world at a specific time and place, and have always been wrong. And undeniably, borrowing isn't all bad ? easy access to money has been a critical tool in building America's businesses, from mom-and-pops to multinationals.

But something has changed. More than two centuries ago, Benjamin Franklin warned: "He that goes aborrowing, goes asorrowing." Now, a laugh-til-you-cry commercial portrays a man with a beautiful home and car declaring: "I'm in debt up to my eyeballs. I can barely pay my finance charges. Somebody help me."

The epidemic of American indebtedness runs from home to government to global marketplace. To examine it, let's start at home.

Americans used to save, but no longer. Back in the 1950s, a generation of Americans who had survived the Depression and Second World War saved roughly 8 percent of their income. The savings rate rose and fell slightly over the decades ? it went as high as 11 percent and as low as 7 percent during the "greed is good" 1980s ? but now those days are only a memory.

In the charge-everything start of the new millennium, savings have plummeted: to just 1.8 percent last year, below 1 percent since January and at zero in the latest estimate from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The lack of savings is mirrored by a rise in debt. In 2000, household debt broke 18 percent of disposable income for the first time in 20 years, meaning debt eats almost $1 in every $5 American families have to spend after they get past the bills that keep them fed and housed. (That figure hasn't dropped. Credit card debt alone averages $7,200 per household.)

Many people take comfort in the rising value of their homes, and its spurred record home-building and buying, with new construction making places like Las Vegas the fastest-growing in the nation. But a home translates into wealth only when you sell it ? and there's a vigorous debate over whether the housing boom is becoming a bubble that will burst.

"It seems like, with the younger generation, that they want to have now what it took us years to get," says Jo Canelon, a 46-year-old social worker in Statenville, Ga.

"I see people younger than me with comparable jobs that drive new vehicles and have a boat and mortgage and things," says Canelon, who responded to the AP/Ipsos poll. "And I just wonder about their debt."

Canelon sees echoes in the rise of obesity: a pervasive I-want-it-now attitude no matter what the consequences. To her, debt's a symptom of disease, and one that's spreading.

If she's right, the government is sick, too.

Leaders are elected by the people they serve, of course, and the American people seem to want the best of both worlds ? tax cuts and government services ? while they hope the dollars sort themselves out. They worry about the nation's problems, but not enough to agree on a course of action to fix them.

The AP/Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults taken July 5-7 found that a sweeping majority ? 70 percent ? worried about the size of the federal deficit either "some" or "a lot."

But only 35 percent were willing to cut government spending and experience a drop in services to balance the budget. Even fewer ? 18 percent ? were willing to raise taxes to keep current services. Just 1 percent wanted to both raise taxes and cut spending. The poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

The nation's political leaders could hardly be said to have a mandate calling for fiscal responsibility.

A few years ago, government finances were the strongest they've been in a generation. Then came a turnaround ? and a stunningly quick one. The budget surplus of $236 billion in 2000 turned into a deficit of $412 billion last year. The government had to borrow that much to cover the hole between what it took in and what it had to spend; a difference that's called the federal deficit.

Blame the bust of the dot-com boom, the ensuing recession, President Bush's federal tax cuts, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bush has gotten his share of brickbats, from both the right and the left, for the spending while he's in office. Still, the federal deficit isn't as big as it was in the worst of the years under President Reagan as a percentage of the overall economy.

Some note things are getting better: The latest reports project a deficit of $331 billion for 2005, nearly $100 billion less than expected. Outstanding debt ? the amount of securities and bonds that must be repaid ? is far below what it was in the early 1990s.

But bigger worries lie ahead.

The nation's three biggest entitlement programs ? Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid ? make promises for retirement and health care (for the elderly and the poor) which carry a huge price tag that balloons as the population grows and ages.

Add it up: current debt and deficit, promises for those big programs, pensions, veterans health care. The total comes to $43 trillion, says Walker, the nation's comptroller general, who runs the Government Accountability Office. That's where the $145,000 bill for every American, or $350,000 for every full-time worker, comes from.

Simply hoping for good times to return won't erase numbers like that, Walker says.

"There's no way we're going to grow our way out of our long-range fiscal imbalance," he says, adding that the country must re-examine tax policy, entitlement programs and the entire federal budget.

"I really do not believe the American people have a real idea as to where we are and where we're headed, and what the potential implications are for the country if we don't start making some tough decisions soon," he says.

The dangers are clear as day to Felicia Brown in Saginaw, Mich. To her, it's the leaders who ignore them, she says.

"We're stealing from our children's future and our grandchildren's future," says the cashier and mother of three, who also responded to the AP/Ipsos poll. "We're led off on this belief that we should buy, buy, buy. Everyone needs a big house, everyone needs a new car every two years. We're spending all this money on that, and we're not saving anything."

Some people, however ? including economists ? think the picture isn't so gloomy.

Ben Bernanke, who recently left the Federal Reserve Board to serve as President Bush's top economic adviser, has argued that the problem is not with the United States. The trouble lies overseas, where people want to save rather than spend their money. The key is to encourage other countries to spend and invest more, he says, though he also believes that the federal budget needs to be balanced.

By raising the issue of foreign investment, Bernanke touches on another area that scares economists ? America's inexhaustible desire for foreign goods.

The trade deficit ? the difference between what America imports and what it exports ? is the highest it's ever been, both in absolute numbers and in comparison to the size of the economy.

As a society, Americans are on track this year to spend $680 billion more on foreign goods such as Chinese-made clothes, Japanese-made cars and Scandinavian cell phones than overseas buyers do on American goods. The crush of arriving, Asian-made products recently spurred the Port of Los Angeles to switch to 24-hour operations.

Nearly two decades ago, the country fretted over a trade imbalance equal to 3.1 percent of the overall economy, or the gross domestic product. It's more than twice as big now, roughly 6.5 percent.

Here's how economists, from former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to analysts at the International Monetary Fund, explain the danger: Americans, who go into debt to keep living a life beyond their means, are spending more and more of that borrowed money to buy goods from overseas.

At the same time, the government provides more services to the public than it can afford to ? and goes into debt to cover the cost.

Other nations actually purchase that debt, in the form of U.S. Treasury bonds and notes. Those bonds have increasingly been snapped up not just by private investors but by foreign banks. Japanese investors hold the most U.S. debt, but China has been buying more than any other country in recent months.

The biggest trade deficit is with China, too, at $162 billion. Japan is next, at $75 billion.

In a very real sense, the U.S. economy is dependent on the central banks of Japan, China and other nations to invest in U.S. Treasuries and keep American interest rates down. The low rates here keep American consumers buying imported goods.

But the lack of fiscal discipline in the United States is undermining the value of the American dollar, thereby lowering the value of the U.S. Treasuries in foreign banks. As the dollar's value drops, other nations' willingness to keep investing cannot last, says Nouriel Roubini, an economics professor at New York University.

If those banks reduced their dollar holdings or were simply less willing to invest so much, it could spark a sharp fall in the value of the dollar. And that could create a host of economic problems.

Economists and business leaders are closely watching China's decision last month to uncouple the value of its currency, the yuan, from the dollar and tie it instead to a basket of different currencies. The move could make the dollar's position less exposed to a quick shift by international investors ? or it could spur those investors to look elsewhere and leave the United States' position more precarious.

In the end, Roubini, Walker and others say, disaster is still avoidable, but it's going to require the American people and the country's leaders to clean financial house ? to reduce the federal deficit and the trade deficit. Global economics may drive some changes: if Japanese cars cost more, for example, Americans may buy less-expensive GMs.

If not, the future poses some frightening what-ifs:

? What if the dollar plummets? Do stocks follow? How about pensions?

? What if interest rates soar? How would all the new homeowners, who stretched to buy with adjustable and interest-only loans, cover their mortgages?

? How would consumers with record credit-card debt make their payments? Would they stop buying? Stop taking vacations? What will happen if they go bankrupt? New rules going into effect later this year make it harder on such debtors.

? How would government, which depends on the taxes of a strong economy to operate, keep all its promises?

Roubini says time is critical because the worse debt becomes, the more vulnerable America is to shocks in the global economic systems ? another spike in oil prices, another major terrorist attack, another major military conflict.

OK, now back to you. No one's asking you to write a check to cover that $145,000, not yet. But the pressures are building around the world, in Washington, and in America's homes to straighten out our finances or get ready for a real mess.

"We're living beyond our means," Roubini says, "and we have to get our act together."

I 100% agree with the bolded statement (last one) above!!!
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
For most, spending cuts are ok as long as it follows the proper procedures

NIMBY :disgust:

A flat percentage cut will generates screams from everyone; people saying that Joe has a bigger slice of the pie, therefore he should give more than myself.

Tax situation in reverse. OK to tax the wealthy because they can afford it; let them support my needs.

Therefore make the fat cat programs get cut; I need my food stamps / educational grants / museums / parks. Do not cut the arts / medical research / law enforcement, etc.

Everyone has their own pet areas; unless the yellow streak in DC is replaced with a backbone to agree to cut spending across the board a set percentage from a given spending/funding level, everyone can expect the kids to pay for it.

Too many entitlement programs exists; the only thing that should be exempt from the slash is the debt. No accounting gimics allowed.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
For most, spending cuts are ok as long as it follows the proper procedures

NIMBY :disgust:

A flat percentage cut will generates screams from everyone; people saying that Joe has a bigger slice of the pie, therefore he should give more than myself.

Tax situation in reverse. OK to tax the wealthy because they can afford it; let them support my needs.

Therefore make the fat cat programs get cut; I need my food stamps / educational grants / museums / parks. Do not cut the arts / medical research / law enforcement, etc.

Everyone has their own pet areas; unless the yellow streak in DC is replaced with a backbone to agree to cut spending across the board a set percentage from a given spending/funding level, everyone can expect the kids to pay for it.

Too many entitlement programs exists; the only thing that should be exempt from the slash is the debt. No accounting gimics allowed.

I tend to agree, but your solution implies all government spending is of equal worth. Now I realize I'm sort of proving your point, but your solution seems more "yellow" to me than making some hard choices about what things need to be funded. When an individual needs to cut back on their spending, they do things like stop eating out so much, they don't cut back on everything including toilet paper.

Now I realize when you get everyone in America involved, figuring out what's essential and what's not becomes far more difficult, like you seem to suggest. But not everything is an opinion matter, and the real reason we spend so much money is that we have this wimpy, PC (and frankly, kind of "liberal") approach to spending where everyone's bozo ideas are just as good as everyone elses. Instead of really figuring out whether option A or option B is worth funding, we just fund them both because we don't want to leave anybody out.

Granted, your solution might be easier, but it would give us less bang for the buck than if we simply were smart about how we spent money. Of course a lot of Americans are just as dumb when it comes to spending, which is why you see so many new cars driven by people deep in debt. I'm no expert, but I've got to believe there are a rather large number of dollars tied up in things most of us could agree can be cut back a little. And I think the only reason they are funded is because we simply haven't taken a closer look yet, because here in America we don't want to discuss depressing things like spending money wisely. We want it all...but we don't want to pay for it.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
My solution would prevent politicians from having to take off their shirts and show how deep the yellow streak is.


Everytime the government has tried to cut programs, some-one jumps up and shows figures and/or emotional appeals on how that program is needed and/or there are far other programs that deserve to be cut instead of the one that is being championed.

The government can not even freeze spending at a current level, how could they have the gonads to actually cuts programs.

Setting a freeze would force decisions to be made by those that actually write the check, not just approve it.

There would be shock to the local system and changes within the personnel structures; however, as long as it was made firm that there would be no accounting gimics (defering payments until the next fiscal year) the government could get done.

Companies that rely on government spending would also have to tighten their belts and be impacted by such a trickle down effect.

Some projects started could be canceled; but such penalties would have to be absorbed by the budget of those that authorized such expenditures.

In otherwords, force the government to act fiscally responsibly. IF funds are neededafter the facdt, then the line items for such expenditures would have to be approved, with a corresponding tranfer of payments from some other part of the budget. Again, no more accounting gimics.

If the government shuts down for a period, then people will find ways to survive, it has happened before.

If a person can put off purchases until their next paycheck, the government can also.

Get rid of the government's credit card.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Too many entitlement programs exist

Like our welfare program for Haliburton...

I vote to cut military spending, Bush's pharma company gift package, and raise taxes, especially on the upper 5%.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Too many entitlement programs exist

When Clinton left office I recall we had a surplus. So either Bush has increased the number and scope of "entitlement programs," or there is something else that put us into debt. Possibly Bush's tax cuts / Bush's war?? And in response to this debt and war Bush is calling for American's to sacrifice while at the same time pushing for more tax cuts for the rich like the estate tax.
 

catnap1972

Platinum Member
Aug 10, 2000
2,607
0
76
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Too many entitlement programs exist

Like our welfare program for Haliburton...

I vote to cut military spending, Bush's pharma company gift package, and raise taxes, especially on the upper 5%.

Don't forget those billions Bush gave to the oil companies!
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Too many entitlement programs exist

Like our welfare program for Haliburton...

I vote to cut military spending, Bush's pharma company gift package, and raise taxes, especially on the upper 5%.

The discussion up to this point has been how to reduce government spending without getting partisian.

Lets try to keep it this way.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Too many entitlement programs exist

When Clinton left office I recall we had a surplus. So either Bush has increased the number and scope of "entitlement programs," or there is something else that put us into debt. Possibly Bush's tax cuts / Bush's war?? And in response to this debt and war Bush is calling for American's to sacrifice while at the same time pushing for more tax cuts for the rich like the estate tax.

Was there an actual surplus (tax revenue > government spending) or a projected surplus based on projected figures for the economy over the next few years. ie. Proposed budget(s) submitted to Congress.

 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Too many entitlement programs exist

When Clinton left office I recall we had a surplus. So either Bush has increased the number and scope of "entitlement programs," or there is something else that put us into debt. Possibly Bush's tax cuts / Bush's war?? And in response to this debt and war Bush is calling for American's to sacrifice while at the same time pushing for more tax cuts for the rich like the estate tax.

Was there an actual surplus (tax revenue > government spending) or a projected surplus based on projected figures for the economy over the next few years. ie. Proposed budget(s) submitted to Congress.

We had started to generate yearly surpluses and were on pace to eliminate all debt within like 12 years. It took a few years to turn things around in the 90's.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Too many entitlement programs exist
When Clinton left office I recall we had a surplus. So either Bush has increased the number and scope of "entitlement programs," or there is something else that put us into debt. Possibly Bush's tax cuts / Bush's war?? And in response to this debt and war Bush is calling for American's to sacrifice while at the same time pushing for more tax cuts for the rich like the estate tax.
Was there an actual surplus (tax revenue > government spending) or a projected surplus based on projected figures for the economy over the next few years. ie. Proposed budget(s) submitted to Congress.
We had started to generate yearly surpluses and were on pace to eliminate all debt within like 12 years. It took a few years to turn things around in the 90's.
12 more years of what?...Tech boom?...yeah that's a reasonable projection.

Typically recessions occur every 7 years. Projections beyond that is just ignorance.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
This problem will exist as long as we have progressive taxation. 1/2 the tax payers pay little or taxes, yet get the full benefits of goverment? Why would they want things to change as someone else is footing the bill.


The tax code needs to be flattened and the tax base enlarged if you want to bring spending under control.

 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: charrison
This problem will exist as long as we have progressive taxation. 1/2 the tax payers pay little or taxes, yet get the full benefits of goverment? Why would they want things to change as someone else is footing the bill.


The tax code needs to be flattened and the tax base enlarged if you want to bring spending under control.


You know, I resisted that idea at first...but I'm starting to think that may very well cure the problem. 40 million people paying taxes (that didn't before) will now be bitching like hell. Might be DC's worst nightmare! :Q
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Too many entitlement programs exist
When Clinton left office I recall we had a surplus. So either Bush has increased the number and scope of "entitlement programs," or there is something else that put us into debt. Possibly Bush's tax cuts / Bush's war?? And in response to this debt and war Bush is calling for American's to sacrifice while at the same time pushing for more tax cuts for the rich like the estate tax.
Was there an actual surplus (tax revenue > government spending) or a projected surplus based on projected figures for the economy over the next few years. ie. Proposed budget(s) submitted to Congress.
We had started to generate yearly surpluses and were on pace to eliminate all debt within like 12 years. It took a few years to turn things around in the 90's.
12 more years of what?...Tech boom?...yeah that's a reasonable projection.

Typically recessions occur every 7 years. Projections beyond that is just ignorance.

12 years of modest growth, not a "tech boom". C'mon, give me more credit than that.

In the style of Mr. Miyagi (sp)...

Tax cuts... safe...

More spending... safe...

Do both... squish like grape.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
You forgot the $600 billion military budget.

And, fwiw,

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1594399&enterthread=y&arctab=y

Smaller than social insecurity.

Originally posted by: EatSpam
I vote to cut military spending, Bush's pharma company gift package, and raise taxes, especially on the upper 5%.
Are you talking about that Medicare expansion? If so I agree it was one of the worst decision of the Bush presidency.

Unfortunately the elderly rule the country and the rest of us are peasants.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: charrison
This problem will exist as long as we have progressive taxation. 1/2 the tax payers pay little or taxes, yet get the full benefits of goverment? Why would they want things to change as someone else is footing the bill.


The tax code needs to be flattened and the tax base enlarged if you want to bring spending under control.


You know, I resisted that idea at first...but I'm starting to think that may very well cure the problem. 40 million people paying taxes (that didn't before) will now be bitching like hell. Might be DC's worst nightmare! :Q



That and ending withholding and forcing everyone to write a check to the goverment quarterly.
 

tec699

Banned
Dec 19, 2002
6,440
0
0
My biggest concern is with the baby boomers. 80 million Americans are going to be over 65 years of age I believe. Maybe the government should just cut their health care to 50%? Why should I have to pay for a 80 year olds medication?

The article didn't even mention the impact of illegal immigration on our economy.

:(
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: charrison
This problem will exist as long as we have progressive taxation. 1/2 the tax payers pay little or taxes, yet get the full benefits of goverment? Why would they want things to change as someone else is footing the bill.


The tax code needs to be flattened and the tax base enlarged if you want to bring spending under control.


You know, I resisted that idea at first...but I'm starting to think that may very well cure the problem. 40 million people paying taxes (that didn't before) will now be bitching like hell. Might be DC's worst nightmare! :Q



That and ending withholding and forcing everyone to write a check to the goverment quarterly.


Heh, you would break alot of people in this country if you gave them the tax money up front and taxed them quarterly. They would spend the whole damn thing, go broke trying to pay taxes and everyone would lose! :p
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: tec699
My biggest concern is with the baby boomers. 80 million Americans are going to be over 65 years of age I believe. Maybe the government should just cut their health care to 50%? Why should I have to pay for a 80 year olds medication?

The article didn't even mention the impact of illegal immigration on our economy.

:(

Because they are your masters. It's utterly disgusting.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: tec699
My biggest concern is with the baby boomers. 80 million Americans are going to be over 65 years of age I believe. Maybe the government should just cut their health care to 50%? Why should I have to pay for a 80 year olds medication?

The article didn't even mention the impact of illegal immigration on our economy.

:(

Because they are your masters. It's utterly disgusting.

Quick question: If you had been paying into SS for 30 to 40 years, as those utterly discgusting people have been, would you expect to get it?

 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: Engineer

Quick question: If you had been paying into SS for 30 to 40 years, as those utterly discgusting people have been, would you expect to get it?

That's what I am going to be doing for the next 40 years. $250k+ minimum for a measly $1.5k or so monthy payment.

 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
"Why should I have to pay for a 80 year olds medication?"

Because they've paid for their seniors' care?

Because they've worked and sacrificed to maintain your freedoms, and to leave the country in better shape than they found it?

Because you, too, could end up on the stinky end of the stick when you're old and feeble?

Because they didn't snap your neck as a newborn and throw you in the stewpot?

Because it's not all about you, anyway, even thought you apparently think it should be?