My personal plans? What do you mean? My personal health care needs? I'm OK there - what about you?
I see suffering all around me - people losing their lives and limbs totally unnecessarily and otherwise suffering, and I see some people responding to all that in a way showing that they have no conscience, where they do not believe in the Christian ideal put forth in Acts 2 and 4, where the early Christians in response to an initial encounter with God gave us the Christian model of how to take care of each other on needs (not non-needs), where they practiced heavy duty collectivism and redistribution, people with money putting all or some of their money into a central treasury out of which all their needs were met. It's very clear that the countries that most practice the New Testament ideals of this social democracy are the Scandinavian counties.
But if you are talking about about what is going to happen to all those people who are suffering and dying if this county continues to turn its back on them by refusing to back increasing revenues for the federal government to at least where they were under Clinton toward the end of his second term (more than 20% of GDP, compared to today's 15% of GDP - that more than 5% difference equaling not far from an extra 1 trillion per year) as a foundation for more increases later, well, isn't it clear that they will continue suffering and dying? And your response to all that suffering and dying?
By the way, yet again, this fact: We do not need to balance the budget, only get the annual deficit as a percentage of GDP below the annual growth rate as a percentage of GDP, to cause the total debt to fall as a percentage of GDP. If the growth rate were an annual rate of 3%, then an annual deficit of 2.9% would be fine; if spending were 25%, but revenues were 22.1% and growth was 3%, then fine. In such cases, the total debt always goes down as a percentage of GDP.
And in case you do not know, even people in Wall Street like Warren Buffet say that federal government spending should always be larger than revenues, but where the annual deficit as a percentage of GDP is below the annual growth rate as a percentage of GDP. They say this because they know that that's the only way to maximize ongoing growth.
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Robert Hansen <email@example.com> wrote: > You didn't answer my question. Just assume that your analysis is wrong and we don't find an extra trillion dollars just to pay for what we are spending, let alone another trillion dollars on top of that trillion to pay for what you suggest, even more. Just assume that. What will you do then? Do you have a personal plan in case this money ship does not arrive? > > Bob Hansen > > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 5:06 PM, Paul Tanner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> I and others like me will just keep speaking the truth and all the >> documented fact including via all the links that I put forth in >> >> "Re: Democracy - how to achieve it?" >> http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7935045 >> >> with the expectation that as the percentage of the population losing >> their lives and limbs and otherwise suffering unnecessarily rises >> without end, enough of the voting population will no longer listen to >> those who promote the rejecting of Conscience and instead accept and >> heed Conscience and start to vote accordingly. >> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Robert Hansen <email@example.com> wrote: >>> So what will you do when they cut back on these programs Paul? Both the dems and the reps agree that they have to be curtailed, they just don't want to do it just yet (the Greece strategy several years ago) >>> >>> Bob Hansen >>> >>> On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Paul Tanner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Then of course we have Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. >