Actually I am impressed by that too. Even though I don't agree with many of his extremist views, this one actually I really do agree.
The another one has not progress at all, still at his old job of trolling with copy and paste though.
In fact it is almost too good as if it came off the blog of some libertarian blog. It would not look out of place on Ron Paul's campaign site or other debt fear mongerers. In fact I could swear I read it somewhere.
topjumper said:
And the point you are making is? How does that answer or contradict the points I was making in my previous post?
Since you aren't a troll like Chinaowns I will answer this question. The weakness Chinaowns refers too is acutely known by any framer of a democratic constitution. The American Constitution, rather than granting legal rights, grants natural rights. The fundamental difference between a republic and a democracy is natural versus legal rights. In terms of voting in politicians who will provide the most benefits, that means that any natural right not guaranteed by the constitution is a legal right and therefore far harder for a politician to grant. The USA is nowhere near single payer healthcare, even though the majority of Americans want it, because single payer healthcare is not a natural right according to the US constitution. Any politician who promises to bribe the electorate with this or that benefit in a republic runs the risk of being attacked by his opponent for damaging the values of the republic. Legal rights can also be taken away. This means that should a benefit be fiscially unsound to the point of bankrupting a country, it can be removed with little fuss compared to natural rights.
Republics do not fall due to poor fiscal restraint as Chinaowns claims. They fall due to extremists on both left and right banding together to topple the republicans, usually from within due to some weakness in the constitution. Consider that most governing political parties do so with 30-40% of the vote. Now in a weak system, the extremists who make up 10-15% per party together with other extremists and remove the republicans from power, then proceed to destroy the system. This is how Hitler came to power. He actually had less than 20% of the vote, mostly 15%, but banded together with other extremists to oust the republicans. This mode of collapse is particularly difficult in a modern republic, because natural rights are guaranteed and not removable by legal measures of any dictator. If the constitution does not have severe weaknesses like the Weimar one, a republic is extremely robust.
Money is controlled by the government, so saying the government will collapse because it owes too much money is ridiculous unless that money is owed to foreigners. And even then only external factors such as those foreigners possessing a superior military or weakness in the constitution can destroy the republic, not simply going broke.
Consider the following fact: between 1945 and 2010, one hundred dollars in 1945 money is now worth one thousand dollars. That means that in a short fifty years or so, the US debt will be ten times smaller naturally even if absolutely nothing is done. America will not be at war in Iraq forever, the baby boomers will not be around forever and government run healthcare is actually cheaper than what Americans have now (this is a proven fact with the Canadian and UK systems; the fear is quality will go down not that costs will go up). So even if every American demands healthcare coverage, costs will be lower than if run by corporate fat cats. America spends more public dollars covering a portion of its population than other countries do their whole population, adjusted per capita. That is a fact, so healthcare bankrupting the country is probably false. Same with almost every other benefit.
