I can't disagree with that.
The prescription drug program and Obamacare are just the latest expansions of unsustainable programs that will bankrupt us. There is very little that can change the trajectory other than economic collapse. Americans want all the benefits a European-style welfare state can offer, but do no want to pay for it. We are in decline no matter what metric you want to use.
There is clearly a problem in this area, isn't there? I absolutely agree with you that Americans are very human in that they like governmental goodies and they don't want to pay for them.
I think that many people have learned how to rationalize their own participation. Typically, they consider themselves "entitled" to the type of benefits that they receive and believe that our budgetary problems are being caused by the types of benefits that they don't receive. In other words, their benefits are legitimate, but the benefits that they don't receive are an abuse of the system. They tend to feel the same way about taxes. They often support the types of taxes that they don't pay and oppose the types of taxes that they perceive are being imposed upon them (directly or indirectly). These are vey human reactions.
However, I think we need to be careful about projections in this area. If a system cannot work, then that reality will force a change. And, I'm not sure that that change necessarily requires a total "economic collapse." I see a lot of other alternatives. One obvious alternative is that a huge debt can be reduced by a reduction in the value of the money used to pay it. Another alternative involves reductions in real benefits relative to the size of the economic system, and still another alternative involves increases in taxes used to pay for goodies. All of these alternatives are difficult, but all of them might be less difficult than a total economic collapse.
And, that leads us to your statement that "[t]hings will change for the worse." That is a possible outcome. If you and I disagree, it is probably on this point. I'm not at all sure that a negative outcome is inevitable. I think that there are just too many unknowns to allow us to be certain that the future will be worse than the present.
But, then,I tend to be an optimist. Optimism has nearly always worked for me so I don't want to discard it and I'm probably too old to change much anyway. ;-)
By and large, the Europeans are paying for them thru higher taxation. Europeans are "very human" as well. Their politicians treat them as adults.
However, I think we need to be careful about projections in this area. If a system cannot work, then that reality will force a change. And, I'm not sure that that change necessarily requires a total "economic collapse."
It will require an existential crisis similar to what happened to SS in 1983. SS has been running in the red since 2010 and Medicare since 2008. The collapse of these programs is predictable. The annual Trustees Reports for SS and Medicare provide all the needed data. The dates that these programs will have to reduce payments by law are currently 2024 for Medicare and 2033 for SS. The SSDI Trust Fund goes belly up in 2016, next year. Congress will have to fix it next year. 40% of all Medicare expenditures come from the General Fund. Our population of those over 65 will double in the next 20 years to 78 million. In 1950 there were 16 workers to every retiree; today there are about 3; and by 2030 there will be just two.
You can provide all the "happy talk" you want, but the reality is much different.
One obvious alternative is that a huge debt can be reduced by a reduction in the value of the money used to pay it.
Are you talking about a government directed devaluation? What impact will this have globally where things like oil are valued in dollars? What does this do to our imports? Is a weak dollar in our interests? How does it impact the dollar as the world's default currency? How does if affect our foreign creditors?
Another alternative involves reductions in real benefits relative to the size of the economic system, and still another alternative involves increases in taxes used to pay for goodies. All of these alternatives are difficult, but all of them might be less difficult than a total economic collapse.
Therein lies the pain. Why haven't these alternatives been implemented? You need political leaders who will tell the American people the truth.
And, that leads us to your statement that "[t]hings will change for the worse." That is a possible outcome. If you and I disagree, it is probably on this point. I'm not at all sure that a negative outcome is inevitable. I think that there are just too many unknowns to allow us to be certain that the future will be worse than the present.
I have the benefit of some hindsight. This country is in worse shape economically than it was when I was growing up in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Our national debt has grown from $5 trillion when Bush took office in 2001 to $18.5 trillion now. If interest rates ever return to their historical norms, out debt servicing costs will increase exponentially.
But, then,I tend to be an optimist. Optimism has nearly always worked for me so I don't want to discard it and I'm probably too old to change much anyway. ;-)
Even optimists must deal with reality. Otherwise, they would be called delusional.