"Government" is Not the Problem.

[P@triot]

Agreed... The goal was to get more people insured and they've done it. Tackling healthcare costs should absolutely be a major area of focus moving forward

Insane. Absolutely, positively, insane. It's not the governments job to "get more people insured" and it's not the governments job to "tackle healthcare costs". This has been done in Cuba, the U.S.S.R., Cambodia, etc. and it has been a spectacular failure. England is currently trying to decentralize their single payer system because it is unsustainable and Canadian's fly to America for life saving procedures.

The government should actually obey the fucking law. If you want government controlling healthcare - then get out there, convince the American people that it's a good thing, and amend the Constitution. Until then, you sound like a lunatic advocating for illegal activity. This is every bit as stupid as if I went on to a message board and advocated for men to rape women because births are down. It doesn't matter if a perceived problem or real problem exists - it doesn't justify breaking the law!

 

[westwall]

How about we restore Constitutional government and completley get rid of Obamacare? Certainly you're smart enough to realize that it's not only illegal - but that it has been a spectacular failure.

17 million more people now have insurance... No I don't think that's a spectacular failure.

And the 20 to 30 million who lost their coverage don't count? By the way - even if there was a net gain - at what cost?!? Aside from the many millions who lost their coverage, prices have skyrocketed for everyone.

Another 25 million Obamacare Victims

CBO Now Says 10 Mil Will Lose Employer Health Plans Under ObamaCare | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

2 Ohio Counties, Red and Blue, Ready for Obama Era’s End

Yeah man, that does suck for people who got dropped by their employers... Costs went up for some people and small businesses and it had shitty effects. All things considered 17 million people who otherwise wouldn't of had insurance now have insurance. That is an incredible thing. I hope the tards in Washington can stop the pointless repeal talk and actually work together to bring costs down

Yes, they have "insurance" that they can't afford to use. The deductibles are more than they can afford to pay so they still are using the ER's which the ACA was supposed to relieve. Further, because the doctor payments are so bad most doctors in this area won't accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. Thus, in ALL of Northern Nevada there is a single dentist who will accept those patients. Care to guess how long the waits are?

And, they are a corporation that pay their dentists shit wages so how good do you think their work is going to be? The problem with the ACA is we don't even know how bad it is going to get. Insurance? Uh, yeah, OK. They have it. It's worthless, but they "have it".

All valid issues that need to be addressed. But this does not apply to everybody, and the 17 million that are now insured are also now provided with funding for catastrophic events that would have rolled over to the tax payers for the Taxpayers in the past. So one major problem has improved and several smaller ones have arisen... My point is we should be addressing these problems and not blubbering about scrapping the whole program. Talk about taking a major step back

No, not really. Catastrophic coverage is available at the ER's as it has always been. There MAY be a few more who are able to get better cancer coverage than they would have previously, but, they get it by bleeding the middle class who have to pay more for their coverage. So, the poorest of the poor are static. The upper poor do a little better, but the middle class suffer. So, the old canard used to be the needs of the many over rule the needs of the few has been turned upside down.

Now the many, middle class, are being driven into the poor house to support those who are less well off than they are., Once again the rich pay nothing and the 99% are tasked with paying for everything.

Like I have said repeatedly, the ACA is a death knell of the middle class. If it is allowed to continue it will decimate that economic group.

 

[P@triot]

No, not really. Catastrophic coverage is available at the ER's as it has always been. There MAY be a few more who are able to get better cancer coverage than they would have previously, but, they get it by bleeding the middle class who have to pay more for their coverage. So, the poorest of the poor are static. The upper poor do a little better, but the middle class suffer. So, the old canard used to be the needs of the many over rule the needs of the few has been turned upside down.

Now the many, middle class, are being driven into the poor house to support those who are less well off than they are., Once again the rich pay nothing and the 99% are tasked with paying for everything.

Like I have said repeatedly, the ACA is a death knell of the middle class. If it is allowed to continue it will decimate that economic group.

Don't kid yourself - none of this was by accident. Barack Obama is not that stupid. Everything he's done was designed to collapse the middle class (he just "happened" to be attending Columbia University while Cloward & Piven were preaching their strategy to collapse capitalism by overloading the system with socialism and then blaming it on capitalism). Barack Obama knows that the more people that sit on the government plantation - dependent on government for even their most basic needs - the more likely people are to vote Dumbocrat.

The wealthy are untouchable. There is literally nothing you can do to stop them or bring them down. They have too much power, too much influence, and most of all - too many resources. They'll move their money to offshore accounts, etc. The poor is uneducated and you've already duped them into being in your back pocket. The war is for the middle class. If Obama can collapse them and make them poor as well (which he is well on his way to doing) then Dumbocrats win.

 

[westwall]

No, not really. Catastrophic coverage is available at the ER's as it has always been. There MAY be a few more who are able to get better cancer coverage than they would have previously, but, they get it by bleeding the middle class who have to pay more for their coverage. So, the poorest of the poor are static. The upper poor do a little better, but the middle class suffer. So, the old canard used to be the needs of the many over rule the needs of the few has been turned upside down.

Now the many, middle class, are being driven into the poor house to support those who are less well off than they are., Once again the rich pay nothing and the 99% are tasked with paying for everything.

Like I have said repeatedly, the ACA is a death knell of the middle class. If it is allowed to continue it will decimate that economic group.

Don't kid yourself - none of this was by accident. Barack Obama is not that stupid. Everything he's done was designed to collapse the middle class (he just "happened" to be attending Columbia University while Cloward & Piven were preaching their strategy to collapse capitalism by overloading the system with socialism and then blaming it on capitalism). Barack Obama knows that the more people that sit on the government plantation - dependent on government for even their most basic needs - the more likely people are to vote Dumbocrat.

The wealthy are untouchable. There is literally nothing you can do to stop them or bring them down. They have too much power, too much influence, and most of all - too many resources. They'll move their money to offshore accounts, etc. The poor is uneducated and you've already duped them into being in your back pocket. The war is for the middle class. If Obama can collapse them and make them poor as well (which he is well on his way to doing) then Dumbocrats win.

View attachment 83088

There is a lot of truth to that statement. The wealthiest one percent have done better under obama than they ever did under a repub POTUS.

 

[Slade3200]

Agreed... The goal was to get more people insured and they've done it. Tackling healthcare costs should absolutely be a major area of focus moving forward

Insane. Absolutely, positively, insane. It's not the governments job to "get more people insured" and it's not the governments job to "tackle healthcare costs". This has been done in Cuba, the U.S.S.R., Cambodia, etc. and it has been a spectacular failure. England is currently trying to decentralize their single payer system because it is unsustainable and Canadian's fly to America for life saving procedures.

The government should actually obey the fucking law. If you want government controlling healthcare - then get out there, convince the American people that it's a good thing, and amend the Constitution. Until then, you sound like a lunatic advocating for illegal activity. This is every bit as stupid as if I went on to a message board and advocated for men to rape women because births are down. It doesn't matter if a perceived problem or real problem exists - it doesn't justify breaking the law!

Sorry man but even your Trump ain't gonna let people die in the streets, we are going to take care of our sick, poor and elderly because that's what great nations do.

 

[P@triot]

Agreed... The goal was to get more people insured and they've done it. Tackling healthcare costs should absolutely be a major area of focus moving forward

Insane. Absolutely, positively, insane. It's not the governments job to "get more people insured" and it's not the governments job to "tackle healthcare costs". This has been done in Cuba, the U.S.S.R., Cambodia, etc. and it has been a spectacular failure. England is currently trying to decentralize their single payer system because it is unsustainable and Canadian's fly to America for life saving procedures.

The government should actually obey the fucking law. If you want government controlling healthcare - then get out there, convince the American people that it's a good thing, and amend the Constitution. Until then, you sound like a lunatic advocating for illegal activity. This is every bit as stupid as if I went on to a message board and advocated for men to rape women because births are down. It doesn't matter if a perceived problem or real problem exists - it doesn't justify breaking the law!

Sorry man but even your Trump ain't gonna let people die in the streets, we are going to take care of our sick, poor and elderly because that's what great nations do.

He's not my Trump. He's a die-hard liberal who has made massive campaign contributions to Dumbocrats and voted Dumbocrats his entire life. I suspect he'll be even more liberal than Barack Obama. But it will be fun as hell watching libtards lose their mind simply because he has a little "r" behind his name.

 

[P@triot]

Government is not the problem - uh, stupid? People with common sense vehemently disagree...

Four fucking licenses to shine shoes. Liberals have become so unhinged and out of touch that they believe it requires FOUR costly licenses so that someone can shine a fucking shoe.

However, a 2015 study conducted by the White House Council of Economic Advisers found that the share of the U.S. workforce needing a license to work increased five-fold from 1950 to 2008.

In the District of Columbia, for example, someone looking to work as a shoe shiner must attain four different licenses and pay at least $337 to get those licenses.

You Need 4 Different Licenses to Shine Shoes in DC

 

[Slade3200]

17 million more people now have insurance... No I don't think that's a spectacular failure.

And the 20 to 30 million who lost their coverage don't count? By the way - even if there was a net gain - at what cost?!? Aside from the many millions who lost their coverage, prices have skyrocketed for everyone.

Another 25 million Obamacare Victims

CBO Now Says 10 Mil Will Lose Employer Health Plans Under ObamaCare | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

2 Ohio Counties, Red and Blue, Ready for Obama Era’s End

Yeah man, that does suck for people who got dropped by their employers... Costs went up for some people and small businesses and it had shitty effects. All things considered 17 million people who otherwise wouldn't of had insurance now have insurance. That is an incredible thing. I hope the tards in Washington can stop the pointless repeal talk and actually work together to bring costs down

Yes, they have "insurance" that they can't afford to use. The deductibles are more than they can afford to pay so they still are using the ER's which the ACA was supposed to relieve. Further, because the doctor payments are so bad most doctors in this area won't accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. Thus, in ALL of Northern Nevada there is a single dentist who will accept those patients. Care to guess how long the waits are?

And, they are a corporation that pay their dentists shit wages so how good do you think their work is going to be? The problem with the ACA is we don't even know how bad it is going to get. Insurance? Uh, yeah, OK. They have it. It's worthless, but they "have it".

All valid issues that need to be addressed. But this does not apply to everybody, and the 17 million that are now insured are also now provided with funding for catastrophic events that would have rolled over to the tax payers for the Taxpayers in the past. So one major problem has improved and several smaller ones have arisen... My point is we should be addressing these problems and not blubbering about scrapping the whole program. Talk about taking a major step back

No, not really. Catastrophic coverage is available at the ER's as it has always been. There MAY be a few more who are able to get better cancer coverage than they would have previously, but, they get it by bleeding the middle class who have to pay more for their coverage. So, the poorest of the poor are static. The upper poor do a little better, but the middle class suffer. So, the old canard used to be the needs of the many over rule the needs of the few has been turned upside down.

Now the many, middle class, are being driven into the poor house to support those who are less well off than they are., Once again the rich pay nothing and the 99% are tasked with paying for everything.

Like I have said repeatedly, the ACA is a death knell of the middle class. If it is allowed to continue it will decimate that economic group.

It's a nice narrative to support your arguement but I just haven't seen that as reality. There are bits of truth in there but you are over exaggerating its effects. I know many people who couldn't get insured before the ACA who have benefited greatly... the fact is the old way was causing many more problems and something had to be done. The ACA had a very rocky start and needs to be evolved. I'd hope that we could evolve it together without all this overbloated crap

 

[westwall]

And the 20 to 30 million who lost their coverage don't count? By the way - even if there was a net gain - at what cost?!? Aside from the many millions who lost their coverage, prices have skyrocketed for everyone.

Another 25 million Obamacare Victims

CBO Now Says 10 Mil Will Lose Employer Health Plans Under ObamaCare | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

2 Ohio Counties, Red and Blue, Ready for Obama Era’s End

Yeah man, that does suck for people who got dropped by their employers... Costs went up for some people and small businesses and it had shitty effects. All things considered 17 million people who otherwise wouldn't of had insurance now have insurance. That is an incredible thing. I hope the tards in Washington can stop the pointless repeal talk and actually work together to bring costs down

Yes, they have "insurance" that they can't afford to use. The deductibles are more than they can afford to pay so they still are using the ER's which the ACA was supposed to relieve. Further, because the doctor payments are so bad most doctors in this area won't accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. Thus, in ALL of Northern Nevada there is a single dentist who will accept those patients. Care to guess how long the waits are?

And, they are a corporation that pay their dentists shit wages so how good do you think their work is going to be? The problem with the ACA is we don't even know how bad it is going to get. Insurance? Uh, yeah, OK. They have it. It's worthless, but they "have it".

All valid issues that need to be addressed. But this does not apply to everybody, and the 17 million that are now insured are also now provided with funding for catastrophic events that would have rolled over to the tax payers for the Taxpayers in the past. So one major problem has improved and several smaller ones have arisen... My point is we should be addressing these problems and not blubbering about scrapping the whole program. Talk about taking a major step back

No, not really. Catastrophic coverage is available at the ER's as it has always been. There MAY be a few more who are able to get better cancer coverage than they would have previously, but, they get it by bleeding the middle class who have to pay more for their coverage. So, the poorest of the poor are static. The upper poor do a little better, but the middle class suffer. So, the old canard used to be the needs of the many over rule the needs of the few has been turned upside down.

Now the many, middle class, are being driven into the poor house to support those who are less well off than they are., Once again the rich pay nothing and the 99% are tasked with paying for everything.

Like I have said repeatedly, the ACA is a death knell of the middle class. If it is allowed to continue it will decimate that economic group.

It's a nice narrative to support your arguement but I just haven't seen that as reality. There are bits of truth in there but you are over exaggerating its effects. I know many people who couldn't get insured before the ACA who have benefited greatly... the fact is the old way was causing many more problems and something had to be done. The ACA had a very rocky start and needs to be evolved. I'd hope that we could evolve it together without all this overbloated crap

I don't see what's nice about it. It is the simple fact of living in Nevada. There is no over exaggeration. Large States can absorb the impact easier than the small ones can. Small States like mine are going to go under much faster than a State like Cali. It's simple numbers.

 

[dblack]

Surely you would support setting reasonable standards in our healthcare and commerce markets, right? There is no reason for our country to have third world style businesses and hospitals... Can we at least agree on that?

I doubt we can. Government has as role to play in ensuring transparency and honest dealings, but it shouldn't be telling us what kind of doctors we can, and can't, hire. We need "third world style businesses and hospitals" because some of us don't make much more than than a third world wage. Making them illegal forces people deeper into poverty and dependency.

This is where liberals are tragically disconnected from the lives of the people they claim to care about. In very real terms the kinds of regulations that set "reasonable standards" are trying to address poverty by banning it. They're saying that if you can't afford someone else's idea of minimum acceptable quality of health care (or whatever service is being regulated) then you're just out of luck.

[In] the end I don't see how simply deregulating healthcare is going to bring down the prices. There needs to be something more.

Agreed. The insurance salesman's myth - that idea insurance makes things more affordable - is deeply engrained in our consumer culture. We need to re-establish the fact that insurance is only a good idea for dealing with unforeseen disasters, and not a sane away to finance our needs. And that will take awhile. But markets respond pretty quickly. If the government truly did stay out of the way, I suspect things would rebalance far quicker than with arbitrary government mandates.

Is there another country that uses a healthcare model that you feel has been effective and along the lines of something you'd support?

I'm not suggesting any particular model, only that people should be free to choose the alternatives that suit them. It shouldn't be a government decision.

 

[Slade3200]

Surely you would support setting reasonable standards in our healthcare and commerce markets, right? There is no reason for our country to have third world style businesses and hospitals... Can we at least agree on that?

I doubt we can. Government has as role to play in ensuring transparency and honest dealings, but it shouldn't be telling us what kind of doctors we can, and can't, hire. We need "third world style businesses and hospitals" because some of us don't make much more than than a third world wage. Making them illegal forces people deeper into poverty and dependency.

This is where liberals are tragically disconnected from the lives of the people they claim to care about. In very real terms the kinds of regulations that set "reasonable standards" are trying to address poverty by banning it. They're saying that if you can't afford someone else's idea of minimum acceptable quality of health care (or whatever service is being regulated) then you're just out of luck.

[In] the end I don't see how simply deregulating healthcare is going to bring down the prices. There needs to be something more.

Agreed. The insurance salesman's myth - that idea insurance makes things more affordable - is deeply engrained in our consumer culture. We need to re-establish the fact that insurance is only a good idea for dealing with unforeseen disasters, and not a sane away to finance our needs. And that will take awhile. But markets respond pretty quickly. If the government truly did stay out of the way, I suspect things would rebalance far quicker than with arbitrary government mandates.

Is there another country that uses a healthcare model that you feel has been effective and along the lines of something you'd support?

I'm not suggesting any particular model, only that people should be free to choose the alternatives that suit them. It shouldn't be a government decision.

I don't agree with all of your points but I appreciate the debate and do agree with your stance with the role of insurance. Thanks for the discussion

 

[P@triot]

"Government is not the problem"? Really??? Reality vehemently disagrees with you AVG-JOE...

Nice job America. You've nominated the two worst choices in U.S. history and now we have our choice between brain cancer and pancreatic cancer:

Just about any way you slice it, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton would add to the U.S. debt if either of their tax and spending programs were enacted by Congress next year.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the non-partisan fiscal watchdog group that has been taking the lead in tallying up the costs of the presidential candidates’ proposals, has previously estimated that $14 trillion in publicly held debt would rise to $23.9 trillion by 2026 under Clinton’s plans for raising taxes and boosting domestic spending, while soaring to $35.2 trillion under Trump’s proposals for record tax cuts for wealthy Americans and increased defense spending.

In fairness, Clinton’s contribution to a soaring debt could turn out to be more substantial, depending on how much more she would actually spend on her more recent campaign promises. Those include expanding health care coverage through Medicare and providing free tuition at public colleges and universities to low and middle-income students.

Trump Fumes Over $19 Trillion National Debt, but His Plan Would Double It

 

[Slade3200]

"Government is not the problem"? Really??? Reality vehemently disagrees with you AVG-JOE...

Nice job America. You've nominated the two worst choices in U.S. history and now we have our choice between brain cancer and pancreatic cancer:

Just about any way you slice it, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton would add to the U.S. debt if either of their tax and spending programs were enacted by Congress next year.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the non-partisan fiscal watchdog group that has been taking the lead in tallying up the costs of the presidential candidates’ proposals, has previously estimated that $14 trillion in publicly held debt would rise to $23.9 trillion by 2026 under Clinton’s plans for raising taxes and boosting domestic spending, while soaring to $35.2 trillion under Trump’s proposals for record tax cuts for wealthy Americans and increased defense spending.

In fairness, Clinton’s contribution to a soaring debt could turn out to be more substantial, depending on how much more she would actually spend on her more recent campaign promises. Those include expanding health care coverage through Medicare and providing free tuition at public colleges and universities to low and middle-income students.

Trump Fumes Over $19 Trillion National Debt, but His Plan Would Double It

What consequences from the debt are we going to realize? Please explain how this plays out

 

[P@triot]

What consequences from the debt are we going to realize? Please explain how this plays out

Well I'm a conservative so you won't listen to me. Could I perhaps direct you to speak with Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan...???

 

[P@triot]

What consequences from the debt are we going to realize? Please explain how this plays out

I mean.....seriously dude....how do you think it "plays out"? Can you stop being a disingenuous liberal for 10 seconds and just embrace reality? This isn't Monopoly money. These are real debts that are really owed. And they've reached a staggering $19 trillion. There is a grand total of $1.46 trillion in U.S. currency. You don't see a mind-boggling problem there chief? If they confiscated every single penny from every single person in the U.S., they would only have 1/20th of the money they need to cover the debt.

How does it end? First like Detroit - with bankruptcy. Where people who are owed money get fucked royally out of their money. Then it moves to the former U.S.S.R. - with complete and total collapse. Where everyone waits days in life for a fucking loaf of bread.

But by all means...continue to buy into the the false liberal narrative that debts don't matter, that this is all just funny money, and that there will be no consequences whatsoever for our actions.

 

[Slade3200]

"Government is not the problem"? Really??? Reality vehemently disagrees with you AVG-JOE...

Nice job America. You've nominated the two worst choices in U.S. history and now we have our choice between brain cancer and pancreatic cancer:

Just about any way you slice it, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton would add to the U.S. debt if either of their tax and spending programs were enacted by Congress next year.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the non-partisan fiscal watchdog group that has been taking the lead in tallying up the costs of the presidential candidates’ proposals, has previously estimated that $14 trillion in publicly held debt would rise to $23.9 trillion by 2026 under Clinton’s plans for raising taxes and boosting domestic spending, while soaring to $35.2 trillion under Trump’s proposals for record tax cuts for wealthy Americans and increased defense spending.

In fairness, Clinton’s contribution to a soaring debt could turn out to be more substantial, depending on how much more she would actually spend on her more recent campaign promises. Those include expanding health care coverage through Medicare and providing free tuition at public colleges and universities to low and middle-income students.

Trump Fumes Over $19 Trillion National Debt, but His Plan Would Double It

What consequences from the debt are we going to realize? Please explain how this plays out

Well I'm a conservative so you won't listen to me. Could I perhaps direct you to speak with Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan...???

View attachment 84182

I'll listen to anybody that makes sense... Can you explain the rational behind your comments?

 

[P@triot]

"Government is not the problem"? Really??? Reality vehemently disagrees with you AVG-JOE...

Nice job America. You've nominated the two worst choices in U.S. history and now we have our choice between brain cancer and pancreatic cancer:

Just about any way you slice it, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton would add to the U.S. debt if either of their tax and spending programs were enacted by Congress next year.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the non-partisan fiscal watchdog group that has been taking the lead in tallying up the costs of the presidential candidates’ proposals, has previously estimated that $14 trillion in publicly held debt would rise to $23.9 trillion by 2026 under Clinton’s plans for raising taxes and boosting domestic spending, while soaring to $35.2 trillion under Trump’s proposals for record tax cuts for wealthy Americans and increased defense spending.

In fairness, Clinton’s contribution to a soaring debt could turn out to be more substantial, depending on how much more she would actually spend on her more recent campaign promises. Those include expanding health care coverage through Medicare and providing free tuition at public colleges and universities to low and middle-income students.

Trump Fumes Over $19 Trillion National Debt, but His Plan Would Double It

What consequences from the debt are we going to realize? Please explain how this plays out

Well I'm a conservative so you won't listen to me. Could I perhaps direct you to speak with Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan...???

View attachment 84182

I'll listen to anybody that makes sense... Can you explain the rational behind your comments?

Yes.....Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan will have to explain it to you.

 

[Slade3200]

What consequences from the debt are we going to realize? Please explain how this plays out

I mean.....seriously dude....how do you think it "plays out"? Can you stop being a disingenuous liberal for 10 seconds and just embrace reality? This isn't Monopoly money. These are real debts that are really owed. And they've reached a staggering $19 trillion. There is a grand total of $1.46 trillion in U.S. currency. You don't see a mind-boggling problem there chief? If they confiscated every single penny from every single person in the U.S., they would only have 1/20th of the money they need to cover the debt.

How does it end? First like Detroit - with bankruptcy. Where people who are owed money get fucked royally out of their money. Then it moves to the former U.S.S.R. - with complete and total collapse. Where everyone waits days in life for a fucking loaf of bread.

But by all means...continue to buy into the the false liberal narrative that debts don't matter, that this is all just funny money, and that there will be no consequences whatsoever for our actions.

Debt does matter but you aren't being realistic about what the national debt is not how it affects us. It isn't like a credit card debt, and we don't have a deadline where we need to write a check for 19 trillion dollars. We can't default on anything unless the value of the dollar crashes. So please explain how this happens

 

[Conservative65]

You all are funny, your freedom is an illusion only permissible by the government. Luckily it is a fluid group of elected officials with checks and balances rather than a ruling dictator, king or family. But make no mistake, you rent the land you live on from the Gov. You rent the right to do business and commerce with the governments dollars, and you rent the right to live free as long as you abide by their contract (laws)... Don't believe me, go break the laws... don't pay your income, business, or property taxes... See what happens

Ask Al Sharpton. He owes millions in back taxes.

 

[Conservative65]

What consequences from the debt are we going to realize? Please explain how this plays out

I mean.....seriously dude....how do you think it "plays out"? Can you stop being a disingenuous liberal for 10 seconds and just embrace reality? This isn't Monopoly money. These are real debts that are really owed. And they've reached a staggering $19 trillion. There is a grand total of $1.46 trillion in U.S. currency. You don't see a mind-boggling problem there chief? If they confiscated every single penny from every single person in the U.S., they would only have 1/20th of the money they need to cover the debt.

How does it end? First like Detroit - with bankruptcy. Where people who are owed money get fucked royally out of their money. Then it moves to the former U.S.S.R. - with complete and total collapse. Where everyone waits days in life for a fucking loaf of bread.

But by all means...continue to buy into the the false liberal narrative that debts don't matter, that this is all just funny money, and that there will be no consequences whatsoever for our actions.

Debt does matter but you aren't being realistic about what the national debt is not how it affects us. It isn't like a credit card debt, and we don't have a deadline where we need to write a check for 19 trillion dollars. We can't default on anything unless the value of the dollar crashes. So please explain how this happens

Why don't you study 1920s Germany to get your answer.

Is your answer to an ever increasing debt to continue to take on more because, in your words, "we don't have a deadline where we need to write a check"?