Exactly
 

Exactly. Mostly because of their cartoons. And don't forget they strongly endorsed CAFTA and think farm subsidies are a complete waste of money.

The so called "experts".
 

Stop me if this gets too complicated.

If you spend money you don't have (a/k/a "deficit spending"), you have to pay for it later.

Therefore, future generations will have to pay not only for whatever spending they want for themselves, but also for the things Republicans have spent money on but chosen not to pay for. In this way, they are being taxed.

Even if they elect representatives who decide not to spend as much, they will still have to pay for the stuff today's Republicans are buying.

None of this has anything to do with social engineering.

The so called "experts".
 

[SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF]

[/SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF]

The so called "experts".
 

No you don't. In fact, we should probably never pay off the national debt. The 300 billion in the national debt that was there in 1960 should probably never be paid off. Our national debt forms the anchor for the international monetary system and sets the foundation peg for world interest rates.

If we just balance the budget now and don't touch the debt in twenty years we will be fine. If we balance the budget for the next forty years the national debt will probably get to low and we will have to borrow money. But that is probably something we won't have to worry about.

The so called "experts".
 

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they are."

-- Jean Jacques Rousseau

The so called "experts".
 

If we paid off the national debt what do you think the consequenses would be? Do you have any idea what I am talking about?

The so called "experts".
 

You are welcome to move to Somalia or Haiti, or someother place where government has completelybroken down and man is truly free, but I think I will keep my chains.

Just so we're clear: You're not saying that we're not taxing future generations, you're saying it's not a problem because they'll be able to afford it.

We have to have some sort of national debt, so having a debt is not a problem (if there is growth and no deflation). The problem comes from recent deficits. Especially high recent deficits. In order to solve the problem you just need to keep the budget balanced for a while until the national debt becomes a much smaller percentage of the GNP. But if the debt becomes too small that would also be a problem. We could not have balanced budgets indefinitely without hurting the economy. So in the long term todays debt does not have to be paid back. If you keep the budget balanced for too long of a time you would have to incur some more debt to keep the economy healthy.

Tort Reform!
 

When I practiced law in the Bay Area, my only clients were physicians, and I represented them in every area of their practice except for medical malpractice claims. I worked very, very closely with CMA and I'm professional and personally sympathetic to the plight of the physician. (I'm typing this while two of them argue hospital politics during the Rose Bowl. BTW, Go horns!) My interest is in protecting physicians, and to focus solely on medical malpractice, especially in the state of California, is ridiculous.

MICRA rules and has since 1975 years in California. Further tort reform isn't really possible given MICRA. MICRA is the model for most other states' tort reform with regard to medical liability. I've represented physicians who got dinged with med mal insurance surcharges for "claims history" simply because of a notice to sue letter. *

The problem in your area is low reimbursement, a complete and total domination of a failed managed care system, and closed panels. I used to represent nephrologists that made less than $75K a year. Primary care physicians were even worse off, and this is mainly because managed care dominates the entire market.

Pissed off physicians in California are NOT bitching about medical malpractice. Pissed off physicians in California are bitching about capitation.

*This is what the CMA has to say about MICRA, and why your physician friends in the California Republican Party need to shut up and focus on the other stuff that the CMA advocates:

Quote:

MICRA, the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975, reformed the medical malpractice insurance system in California through implementation of a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, a limit on attorney fees, full disclosure of collateral sources of compensation and periodic payments for awards over $50,000. While a medical malpractice crisis is sweeping across America, MICRA has kept the doors of medicine open and has protected the health care safety net in our state by keeping medical malpractice insurance available and affordable in California. CMA supports continuation of MICRA, including the quarter million dollar cap on noneconomic damages.

I can see Republicans in other states bitching about these things, but not in California. The Texas Monthly rebuttal that I cited shows that medical malpractice premiums went up by as much as 10 percent after tort reform in Texas in 2004 for many insurance companies. Sort of tells you that the lawyers aren't the problem. And the doctors, as usual, are simplifying the issue by vilifying the lawyers. Which they always do, until they need me.

The so called "experts".
 

Future generations will have to pay either the principle or the interest, Spanky. You can argue that the debt won't be crippling -- I didn't say it would be, so I'm not sure whom you're arguing with -- but you can't say it won't exist. If you spend money today, and borrow to do so, you create a liability to be borne in the future. This administration is fine with this, because future generations are politically underrepresented just now.

Tort Reform!
 

They're not gouging. They invested, like everyone else did, heavily in the tech boom, and then the bottom fell out of the market, and suddenly we're in a "medical malpractice crisis."

The so called "experts".
 

You didn't understand my point, did you. I didn't say you were wrong, I just noted that you shifted from complaining about having a government that's too involved in the economy in the space of a handful of posts.

When most Republicans talk about reducing the size of government, they are using code words for explaining that they want government to stop doing things that Democrats like. Very few Republicans -- including almost no federal officials -- are willing to take the political heat that would come with actually practicing what they preach. It's have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too government.

The so called "experts".
 

That's my line. If you truly respect property rights, PM me and I'll tell you where to send the check.

Just so we're clear: You're not saying that we're not taxing future generations, you're saying it's not a problem because they'll be able to afford it.