Since Conservatives are stuck on the 'family budget' analogy, let's go with that, 'k?

[LJ_Reloaded]

Let's say you have a toddler. Since males are deemed to be expendable, let's say the toddler is a girl, so people will actually care. And not just any girl, but a pure-blooded blonde haired blue-eyed white girl, not one of those scary dark skinned immigrants you want to kick back to Mexico, or those evil black women you learned about by watching Maury Povich.

Let's just say you found out today that your pure-blooded baby blonde haired blue eyed wonder isn't so pure-blooded after all, and she's got a brain tumor. And it's going to cost you every dime you have in order to save her life, plus it's going to cost you hundreds of thousands more dollars than you have, in follow-ups, and after you've gone almost infinitely into debt, you have no idea if she will make it to her Brownie Scout years, much less to the adult Tea Party militia woman and Sarah Palin protege' that you envisioned her becoming.

What do you do?
1) Go into debt past your eyeballs and all the way down to crush depth;
2) Faith healing!!!
3) Let Darwin sort it out.

Of course everyone knows no Conservative would dare give an answer to that. Probably ignore this whole thread, post racial slurs, post dodgy responses that don't come close to a real answer... but to give an honest to God answer? If any conserviturd in this forum had 2 pennies to rub together I'd bet such an answer will never happen.

So I'll answer for you: your pro-austerity rhetoric has moved between #2 and #3, but going by your family budget analogy and what your real life actions would be if you were in that situation, your answer would be #1.

 

[John Doe]

Let's say you have a toddler. Since males are deemed to be expendable

Which conservative said males are expendable?

 

[LadyVer]

Possibly..However, with places like Children's Hospitals, they go out of their way to help parents find financial help. They usually don't tell parents, sorry, bur you're SOL. Adult patients are of course told they're SOL. BTW, the males not being worth it part is bs. Nice thread starter though.

 

[BotanyBoy]

OP.....natural selection for the win and make a new baby. I mean really, what is the point in destroying your life only to piss up a flag pole treating a terminal illness in ways that only make the few short years the kid has as miserable as fuck? Fuck that....dope their little ass up so she/he is comfy and take a trip to Disney world, sea world, magic mountain and any other cool place they want to see.

Males are far more expendable than females, maybe not with 7 billion assholes on the planet but if you get down to the nitty gritty it's a fact. Due to the nature of our reproductive cycle as human being's the womenz are more valuable.

 

[mark_j]

Seriously LJ? Nice straw man argument...But I'll play along.

I don't think anyone, conservative, liberal or any other label is gonna do anything but choice 1. To do or believe otherwise would be irresponsible as a parent no matter what your political affiliation is...

Emergencies like you describe not withstanding, the live within your means analogy is valid.. Good financial planning dictates that you should never go into debt beyond your ability to pay.

Possibly..However, with places like Children's Hospitals, they go out of their way to help parents find financial help. They usually don't tell parents, sorry, bur you're SOL. Adult patients are of course told they're SOL. BTW, the males not being worth it part is bs. Nice thread starter though.

Really? Are you sure about that? My recent experience with medical issues sort of shoots that theory down after I found out that my current insurance had lapsed. They went out of their way to help me with the required paperwork to get either COBRA or some sort of financial aid. They didn't stop treatment just because they found out that I might have trouble (at the time) paying for my stay.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Seriously LJ? Nice straw man argument...But I'll play along.

I don't think anyone, conservative, liberal or any other label is gonna do anything but choice 1. To do or believe otherwise would be irresponsible as a parent no matter what your political affiliation is...

Seriously? Terminally ill child...make only years on earth miserable as fuck or you're a shit parent?

Fuck you man, if my 3 y/o kid came down with a terminal illness or tumor or whatever the last thing I would do is poison/irradiate/hack on them for the last 18mo -5 years of their life. I find that almost cruel....call me crazy but I would rather them spend 2 years having a total blast and than treat them so they get 4 years feeling like shit for a chance at 'might live a totally fucked life'.

 

[LadyVer]

Really? Are you sure about that? My recent experience with medical issues sort of shoots that theory down after I found out that my current insurance had lapsed. They went out of their way to help me with the required paperwork to get either COBRA or some sort of financial aid. They didn't stop treatment just because they found out that I might have trouble (at the time) paying for my stay.

You are very fortunate then..That is unusual. Was this a hospital? What kind of financial help did you get? I'm currently uninsured and tried to get financial help through Livestrong but it didn't pan out. I think they wanted to help but there just aren't enough resources.

 

[mark_j]

Seriously? Terminally ill child...make only years on earth miserable as fuck or you're a shit parent?

Fuck you man, if my 3 y/o kid came down with a terminal illness or tumor or whatever the last thing I would do is poison/irradiate/hack on them for the last 18mo -5 years of their life. I find that almost cruel....call me crazy but I would rather them spend 2 years having a total blast and than treat them so they get 4 years feeling like shit for a chance at 'might live a totally fucked life'.

Scenario never said the child was terminally ill dumb ass... You stated your opinion however crudely you wanted, but then my philosophy isn't hard core "fuck 'em let them die" either. I run more along the lines of having a point of diminishing returns. If the child is terminal and the best one can hope for with continued treatment at the expense of quality of life then is a a few months or so then yes, I would opt for making them as comfortable as possible and let them enjoy what time they have left.

 

[mark_j]

You are very fortunate then..That is unusual. Was this a hospital? What kind of financial help did you get? I'm currently uninsured and tried to get financial help through Livestrong but it didn't pan out. I think they wanted to help but there just aren't enough resources.

Sisters of Providence. as it turned out I found out that I was still COBRA eligible. So most of the expenses will be covered. Granted there still is some work to be done with the co-pays so I'm not sure where that is going to go as I haven't gotten word back on my initial applications as yet..

 

[BotanyBoy]

Scenario never said the child was terminally ill dumb ass... You stated your opinion however crudely you wanted, but then my philosophy isn't hard core "fuck 'em let them die" either. I run more along the lines of having a point of diminishing returns. If the child is terminal and the best one can hope for with continued treatment at the expense of quality of life then is a a few months or so then yes, I would opt for making them as comfortable as possible and let them enjoy what time they have left.

OK...not terminally ill but requires surgeries and all sorts of fucked up treatments and shit to live. You will be forever destitute, mom is going to roll out on you eventually for it, and there isn't a snow balls chance in hell your kid will ever have any quality of life....but they will be alive!!!

There are plenty of situations where keeping someone alive/saving their life is NOT a very ethical/moral thing to do, and the more extreme/desperate the measures to save a life are the fuzzier that line usually gets.

What kind of odds of success are we talking about? What kind of risk are there, funding, quality of life expectations etc.

All these things must be considered in order to make a decision that strikes a balance between the rational and ethical. Setting the house on fire for the emotional knee jerk reaction feel good you get from it might be the right choice... you could be blowing your own balls off, in which case it's ALL going to be fucked.

No matter how you cut it not all life and death medical call's are clear cut decisions in favor of treatment...in fact most of them are very tough calls with lot's of things to consider especially when it comes to the very young and the very old and things get extra risky.

 

[mark_j]

OK...not terminally ill but requires surgeries and all sorts of fucked up treatments and shit to live. You will be forever destitute, mom is going to roll out on you eventually for it, and there isn't a snow balls chance in hell your kid will ever have any quality of life....but they will be alive!!!

There are plenty of situations where keeping someone alive/saving their life is NOT a very ethical/moral thing to do, and the more extreme/desperate the measures to save a life are the fuzzier that line usually gets.

What kind of odds of success are we talking about? What kind of risk are there, funding, quality of life expectations etc.

All these things must be considered in order to make a decision that strikes a balance between the rational and ethical. Setting the house on fire for the emotional knee jerk reaction feel good you get from it might be the right choice...but you could also be blowing your own balls off, in which case it's ALL going to be fucked.

No matter how you cut it not all life and death medical call's are clear cut decisions in favor of treatment...in fact most of them are very tough calls with lot's of things to consider especially when it comes to the very young and the very old and things get extra risky.

No shit sherlock, this isn't a cut and dried situation. All of the stuff you mentioned has to be taken into consideration, that is why I said initially that at best the original post is a straw man argument. There is no right answer or path according to the criteria LT sets out.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No shit sherlock, this isn't a cut and dried situation. All of the stuff you mentioned has to be taken into consideration, that is why I said initially that at best the original post is a straw man argument. There is no right answer or path according to the criteria LT sets out.

You did say it was a straw man...

 

[Ishmael]

What does this have to do with the national debt?

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

Seriously LJ? Nice straw man argument...But I'll play along.

I don't think anyone, conservative, liberal or any other label is gonna do anything but choice 1. To do or believe otherwise would be irresponsible as a parent no matter what your political affiliation is...

You've never met VatAss, have you?

He did a cost/benefit analysis and even though he makes a quote good unquote salary, he's opted only to insure himself and his wife. It doesn't "make economic sense" to insure the kids.

After all, if they die, he and his wife are young enough to make a replacement.

 

[kbate]

What does this have to do with the national debt?

You see, Greece went onto an austerity program and it did not instantly reverse their economic situation and create abundance; therefore austerity is not the solution to a nation so deeply in debt that its only solution is bankruptcy, but instead more borrowing and more spending is the solution. Greece (and therefore the USA (and also a hypothetical strawman cancer family)) can simply spend, spend, spend into prosperity.

Lovingtongue is the economic genius who said the U.S. should print money to pay off the national debt and as a side effect the extra money will end unemployment and bring jobs back from China.

Why are you assuming he has a point?

 

[Sean]

You see, Greece went onto an austerity program and it did not instantly reverse their economic situation and create abundance; therefore austerity is not the solution to a nation so deeply in debt that its only solution is bankruptcy, but instead more borrowing and more spending is the solution. Greece (and therefore the USA (and also a hypothetical strawman cancer family)) can simply spend, spend, spend into prosperity.

Lovingtongue is the economic genius who said the U.S. should print money to pay off the national debt and as a side effect the extra money will end unemployment and bring jobs back from China.

Why are you assuming he has a point?

Loath as I am to defend LT, countries that have gone a more Keynesian route after the crash seem to be doing considerably better than those that think Hayek is a god. Austerity measures merely seem to exacerbate the problems.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You see, Greece went onto an austerity program and it did not instantly reverse their economic situation and create abundance; therefore austerity is not the solution to a nation so deeply in debt that its only solution is bankruptcy, but instead more borrowing and more spending is the solution. Greece (and therefore the USA (and also a hypothetical strawman cancer family)) can simply spend, spend, spend into prosperity.

The chief of the IMF publicly admitted that austerity measures in Greece were too severe and actually made a bad situation worse.

But hey, there's LT bashin' to be done so to hell with reality, right? Right?

 

[JohnnySavage]

The problem with any EU country is that they don't control their own currency. You can't translate the problems in Greece to any pure economic theory. It would be like extrapolating the economy of Alabama to a global level.

 

[Ishmael]

You see, Greece went onto an austerity program and it did not instantly reverse their economic situation and create abundance; therefore austerity is not the solution to a nation so deeply in debt that its only solution is bankruptcy, but instead more borrowing and more spending is the solution. Greece (and therefore the USA (and also a hypothetical strawman cancer family)) can simply spend, spend, spend into prosperity.

Lovingtongue is the economic genius who said the U.S. should print money to pay off the national debt and as a side effect the extra money will end unemployment and bring jobs back from China.

Why are you assuming he has a point?

Kinda like Argentina.

I don't assume he has a point. It's just fun to poke the snake from time to time.

Ishmael

 

[1sickbastard]

The problem with any EU country is that they don't control their own currency. You can't translate the problems in Greece to any pure economic theory. It would be like extrapolating the economy of Alabama to a global level.

Only those that signed onto the single currency. EU membership does not automatically mean participation in, and use of the Euro. The UK opted out and did the Danes. There has been some debate in France to back out of the single currency as well.

Also, unlike a US state, the EU members are still sovereign nation-states.

That being said, you do make a good analogy.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Only those that signed onto the single currency. EU membership does not automatically mean participation in, and use of the Euro. The UK opted out and did the Danes. There has been some debate in France to back out of the single currency as well.

Also, unlike a US state, the EU members are still sovereign nation-states.

That being said, you do make a good analogy.

Noted, but I was referring to monetary policy only.

I would argue that any country that doesn't control its currency, is not sovereign. That's why terms are being dictated to Greece by Germany.

It the make-believe world of theoretical economics... Greece produces a lot of products (for a small country) that the rest of the world wants. Had they controlled their currency, they could have devalued it to increase exports; which would have provided additional income.

 

[Sean]

I would argue that any country that doesn't control its currency, is not sovereign. That's why terms are being dictated to Greece by Germany.

.

That has less to do with the workings of the single currency and more to do with the debtor/ creditor relationship. The IMF pulled the same crap on countries like Argentina and Brazil even though those countries nominally controlled their own currencies. In reality, of course, no sovereign nation controls its own currency, it's down to the vagaries of the international capital and currency markets.

 

[John Doe]

Only those that signed onto the single currency. EU membership does not automatically mean participation in, and use of the Euro. The UK opted out and did the Danes. There has been some debate in France to back out of the single currency as well.

Also, unlike a US state, the EU members are still sovereign nation-states.

That being said, you do make a good analogy.

Greece didn't opt out so your point, while factually accurate, is irrelevant.

Whether any member of the EU is sovereign or not is debatable.

 

[JohnnySavage]

That has less to do with the workings of the single currency and more to do with the debtor/ creditor relationship. The IMF pulled the same crap on countries like Argentina and Brazil even though those countries nominally controlled their own currencies. In reality, of course, no sovereign nation controls its own currency, it's down to the vagaries of the international capital and currency markets.

But such leverage is only effective in proportion to the debtor's ability to pay. At the end of the day, a country can simply default on the debt, or pay it off with newly-printed money. If that country has products the world wants, the default/devaluation will hurt the creditor more than the debtor. Bankruptcy (not the proper term for a country, but you get the point) has worked for Donald Trump several times.

 

[Adre]

If I hear this silly Greece/USA analogy one more time...
There is nothing analogous between the world's largest economy and oh, by the way, owner of the world reserve currency, and some quaint little place that exports olive oil, ouzo and...what?