Ryan Medicare privatization helps Democrat win heavily Republican congressional seat

[The-Noid]

You're welcome to doubt all you want, my points stand on their own regardless of what you think my expertise is. On that note however, I highly doubt you've ever spent a day in public policy analysis in your life.

As I have said before, reductions in federal spending to an even larger extent have already happened in this country in the past, without your proposed effects occurring. So basically in terms of the US you're already arguing the counterfactual. To make up for this you attempt to use a single election in one of the poorest countries in Western Europe as evidence. This is an absurdity, and would get you laughed out of the room. Deficit reduction measures are accomplished in many, many different ways, and it's been accomplished quite successfully in countries the world over.

Again, what was the percentage of committed expenses in the Federal budget in the 1950's (the last time we had debt/GDP ~100&#37 compared to today?

In the 1950's Pensions and Health Care comprised <4% of the Federal Budget, now they comprise >34%. This becomes the definition of non-stationary data, thus making your historical representations the counterfactual.

Also, where are these cuts going to come from, since you seem to have this grandiose idea that we can cut the budget. Let's use the 2016 Hypothetical Budget.

36% for Healthcare and Pensions (most likely off the table).
Welfare, off. +8%
Interest off. +10%

Even with 0 spent on defense 55% of the budget is already committed in transfer and interest payments, this is something that is sustainable?

 

[fskimospy]

Again, what was the percentage of committed expenses in the Federal budget in the 1950's (the last time we had debt/GDP ~100%) compared to today?

In the 1950's Pensions and Health Care comprised <4% of the Federal Budget, now they comprise >34%. This becomes the definition of non-stationary data, thus making your historical representations the counterfactual.

See my edit. You're conflating two different problems that are solved in very different ways, which may be the source of your confusion.

It is impossible to solve our long term problems in regards to health care through austerity. Not because the people in charge would be voted out, but because all that austerity measures would end up doing is cost shifting to the private sector, which will be equally overwhelmed. This is why reigning in health care inflation is the answer, and why it's not really an austerity measure.

 

[The-Noid]

See my edit. You're conflating two different problems that are solved in very different ways, which may be the source of your confusion.

It is impossible to solve our long term problems in regards to health care through austerity. Not because the people in charge would be voted out, but because all that austerity measures would end up doing is cost shifting to the private sector, which will be equally overwhelmed. This is why reigning in health care inflation is the answer, and why it's not really an austerity measure.

I don't care, arguing solves nothing. Let's convene in 10 years...

The Ryan plan is awful but it is an attempt, maybe I will be proven wrong and there will be a rush of proposals in the next 10 years. As you earlier brought up in the thread one of the most important keys in 1992 was Medicare, the issue hasn't change in 20 years and I fail to see any rush to change anything in the next 10 years because frankly there are too many people with your attitude.

"We have carried high debts in the past we can carry them again."

2020 becomes the year that interest should exceed the magic 13&#37; level and from what I remember that raises the probability of default within 5 years to 99%.

Cya in '20.