Here are some illegal aliens dreaming about free health care, “because health happens when we dream together”.

Does healthcare happen “when we dream together”, or is the delivery of healthcare a substantially more complicated process?

If wishing will give us free healthcare for all, why stop at our borders?  Why not get it for everyone in the world?  I wish that everyone in the world could have the the very best healthcare there is, for free.  Don’t you?  I wish unicorns would just fly it around everywhere.

But if it turns out that dreaming doesn’t do it, that raises a few more questions.

• Would a culture that favors free exchange of goods and services be more likely to develop high quality medical care than a centrally controlled coercive society?
• If a free society develops high quality medical care, is it likely to improve health care if we move toward a centrally controlled coercive system?
• Is a person’s desire for free stuff a legitimate claim on the lives and property of others?

Let’s face it, it’s tough to conceptualize the meaning of trillions of dollars of debt because the numbers are so big. There is an interesting visual representation of a trillion dollars here, that you should take a look at.  There is also a superb video below that reduces the debt and spending problem to an easily understandable human level.  Pay particular attention to the involvement of the child at the end of the video and ask yourself about the morality of using our children in this way.  [ Thanks to reader Kirsten Curtis for finding the video.]

If you would like another short explanation of the debt crisis, and our future, take a look at this:

In the midst of these insane and self-destructive levels of borrowing and spending, we have leaders who say that we do not have a spending problem or an entitlement problem.  In an interview that aired yesterday on ABC, Obama said, “we don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. In fact, for the next ten years, it’s gonna be in a sustainable place“.   So it’s full speed ahead.  Patty Murray’s budget unveiled this week calls for huge increases in taxes and a 62% increase in spending over the next decade.  Party on!

People who call for more borrowing and spending are called the moderate and reasonable people by the mainstream press.  People who fear the destruction of this unsustainable course, the Tea Party types, are called extremist kooks.

You decide.

“For those of us who believe an economic apocalypse is unavoidable, there is disagreement as to what the end looks like. Some very bright people disagree whether the end is the hell of hyperinflation or death by freezing in the depths of deflation……..”

You can read the rest of this post from Monty Pelerin’s World here:  Why Inflation Will Occur » Monty Pelerins World.

Sequestration:  Originally a legal term referring generally to the act of valuable property being taken into custody by an agent of the court and locked away for safekeeping, usually to prevent the property from being disposed of or abused before a dispute over its ownership can be resolved.          from auburn.edu glossary of political terms

As I see it, valuable property, in ever-increasing amounts, is being taken into custody by the State, but not for safekeeping.  Through debt, the valuable property of our children and grandchildren is being taken into custody, but not for safekeeping.  Most people understand that our rapid growth in spending and debt is unsustainable and will result in economic destruction.

The question before us in the current ‘sequestration battle’ is this:  Are our politicians willing to make even small adjustments to slow the rate of growth of government?

No, they are not willing.  They are kicking and screaming against even a slowdown in the rate of growth.  Imagine the impossibility of making real cuts in spending, where we spend less next year than this year.  Imagine the impossibility of getting on a sustainable path.

So we will stay on an unsustainable path of wildly increasing debt.  You can count on it.  And we will go to where that path leads.  I believe the current administration knows this and is focused solely on making sure the blame for the economic destruction is placed on their enemies.  If you create chaos and can successfully blame it on your enemies, then the chaos you created increases your power.  That’s the Cloward-Piven way.

The fact that there was not a healthy recovery in Obamas first four years was successfully blamed on George Bush.  Obamas’ economic policies will not allow a healthy recovery in the next four years either.  But he and the lap-dog press control the narrative, so all economic problems will  be blamed on Republicans.  ”If only they had not forced the draconian cuts of the sequester…” .  In Obama’s press conference this morning he said that the economic problems we will see in the future should all be blamed on the Republicans and how they handled the sequester.  He did not have to tell the media to do this.  They would have done it anyway.

A short but great Cato video on “Sequestration Panic:

Take a minute to read Charles Krauthammers’  Hail Armageddon .   Really.  It’s worth reading.

Here are some lessons we can take from the sequestration drama:

1. The “firemen first rule” still applies.  If we ask government to spend less of our money, they will say, “OK, we are going to lay of the firemen and teachers and let the prisoners out of jail.”  It’s a form of extortion.  Give us what we want, or else…

2. Obama is comfortable with lying (something we already knew).  His administration created the sequester plan.  He verbally supported the plan when he wanted to look like a budget cutter, saying he was absolutely not going to let the Republicans block the automatic cuts.  Now he is absolutely against these same automatic cuts that he says the cold-hearted Republicans are pushing.  It is worth noting that one or two people in the mainstream press have called him out on his lies.  Journalists doing real journalism is news.

3. It is increasingly clear that Obama’s Presidency is not about finding solutions to problems.  His Presidency is a performance aimed at creating divisions and laying blame.  It’s a constant campaign.  The sequestration deadline and the debt ceiling deadlines are known long in advance.  He does no work to solve these problems in advance.  He simply performs the blame campaign as the deadlines arrive.  This has worked quite well for him so far.

4. Obama’s “balanced approach” means:  more taxes.   He wants a ‘balanced approach’ where serious budget cutting is something we might do some day in the future and raising taxes is something we need to do right now.

5. People still get away with pretending that a modest cut in the rate of growth is a draconian cut in spending.  When you spend more next year than this year, that is an increase in spending.  If you were planning to spend an extra 100 billion next year and you instead spend an extra 98.5 billion, that is called an increase in spending.

6. The primary lesson is that there is no chance that the growth of government will be stopped.  What needs to be done will not be done.  We must plan accordingly.  [It would be more accurate to say that politicians will not reverse the growth of government, but that reality will bat last and will cut the size of government in some very unpleasant ways.  Reality will not allow the borrowing and spending to continue indefinitely.]

7.  People are asking the wrong question.  They are focusing on the negative effects of slowing the rate of growth of government.  The more important question is, what are the negative effects of not slowing the rate of growth of government.

=====================

“If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading” ― Buddha
Things that can’t go on forever, won’t. Debt that can’t be repaid, won’t be.  Promises that can’t be kept, won’t be. —                        –Glen Reynolds

For more, see: Things That Can’t Go On Forever, Won’t

Update: Mark Steyn asks -

Can you pierce the mists of time and go back all the way to the year 2007? Back then, federal spending was 40 percent lower than it is today. In a mere half-decade, has all that 40 percent gravy become so indispensable to the general welfare that not even a teensy-weensy sliver of it can be cut?

If you really believe that, then America is going to die, and a gullible citizenry willing to give this laughable charade the time of day will bear ultimate responsibility.

Speaker John Boehner reported that during the fiscal cliff negotiations, Obama got irritatied with Boehner’s repeated insistence that they deal with the spending problem.  Obama said, “We don’t have a spending problem”.  That’s great news.

Robert B. Reich, Clintons Secretary of Labor, agrees with Obama.  He recently reported that, “Entitlement reform sounds like a noble endeavor, but it has little or nothing to do with reducing future budget deficits.”  More good news.

So spending isn’t a problem and entitlements aren’t a problem.   And even if high unemployment is a problem, Nancy Pelosi reports that she has found a solution for that.  The solution is paying people not to work.  Pelosi says unemployment benefits,  “create jobs faster than  almost any other initiative you can name.” She says spending on unemployment benefits, “creates jobs to help reduce the deficit ”.  So the spending has two benefits, more jobs and less debt.