• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Democrats draft debt-reduction plan

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Or in this case, politicians are merely behaving as the game allows, and the game are the voters. We get what we deserve when we allow politicians into office that behave like this. So many people are overdependent on the Government that our budget problems will never end till the issue is forced by collapse. All of this is just... delaying the inevitable collapse of our economic foundation.

Your reply to obvious bias, implied corruption in the government, and the practical sacrifice of social programs meant to aid people was "Don't hate the player, hate the game"?

Outstanding...
 
IMO, this is not a viable plan. The mandatory spending programs are the largest source of the nation's long-term imbalances. Failure to reform them accomplishes very little. Imposing significant tax hikes and slashing military spending is not a substitute for addressing the cost imbalances associated with those programs, particularly Medicare. Any fiscal gains that it would achieve in terms of stabilizing and lowering the nation's debt would likely be temporary. Those gains would eventually be overwhelmed by the continuing growth in mandatory program spending.
 
Sounds good to me... the systems currently rigged so let's kill it and start over. When people had to pay real money for healthcare it didn't cost as much... wonder why? Oh yea, I already mentioned the systems rigged. Sorry.

Medicare runs with less overhead by percentage than any private insurance company. Would do even better if it were allowed to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies.

Healthcare costs more now because people live longer and we use more advanced technology to keep them living longer. It used to be cheaper... when people died at 63 instead of 83. You're grossly oversimplifying the situation, but I'm sure you knew that.
 
hey, senator conrad,

if you don't take on the entitlements now, exactly where do you expect us to be, oh, say, five years from now?

i mean, you ARE the BUDGET chair, senator conrad

did you see the usa today piece---social security and the m's accounted an ADDITIONAL five point three TRILLION dollars of EVEN MORE unfunded liability in the year two thousand ten ALONE?

U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions - USATODAY.com

senator?

where will we be ONE year from now, chairman conrad, if the programs aren't reformed?

senator conrad, leadership?

anyone?
 
And, what, reduced revenue due to tax cuts (and recession) combined with high military spending haven't added to the problem?

We need a combined approach. Let the temporary tax cuts expire, eliminate unnecessary military programs and GTFO of the rest of the world's business, and Medicare/SS reform. Doing it this way means that no single change has to be as drastic.

Also useful: Legalize marijuana and prostitution, tax those activities to generate revenue and simultaneously reduce all the other crime that is associated with them, which in turn reduces prison costs...

But...but...but...massive government spending creates job!
 
But...but...but...massive government spending creates job!

But... but...but... government can't create any jobs! Therefore cutting government spending can't cost any jobs!
 
But... but...but... government can't create any jobs! Therefore cutting government spending can't cost any jobs!

The best part is that he doesn't realize that our military has so much money, not to mention jobs because of government spending. You can't teach stupid.
 
The best part is that he doesn't realize that our military has so much money, not to mention jobs because of government spending. You can't teach stupid.

The saying goes, "you can't fix stupid".
 
But... but...but... government can't create any jobs! Therefore cutting government spending can't cost any jobs!

That's right, so the more we cut, the better off the budget will be. Yes?
 
The saying goes, "you can't fix stupid".

No no son, you can't teach it. You were born stupid. Nobody taught it to you. You, like Lady Gaga, were born that way.
 
The best part is that he doesn't realize that our military has so much money, not to mention jobs because of government spending. You can't teach stupid.

How about cutting spending that isn't mandated by the constitution.

J-mac
 
Welfare clause. Read all about it.

Complete misinterpretation of that "clause" on your part, however military spending is an enumerated power of congress a "clause" is not.

J-mac
 
Welfare clause. Read all about it.

No where under, "general welfare", does it say that the government should support people who are perfectly able to get a job and make a living.
 
Thank you for proving why you have absolutely no credibility in discussions about a well functioning society. Your neantherthal form of living should be avoided at all costs by modern human beings. You're a rabidly pro-gun, pro-death penalty, tough on crime cause you from Texas relic. My only hope is that one day a time machine will be built and we'll send your ideology back to 15th century Romania.

How insulting.

Well Functioning? Hello, McFly, $14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt, and counting. Guess what? 60%+ of that, is your "progressive" domestic spending.

A well functioning society doesn't coddle failure, doesn't punish success.
 
Welfare clause. Read all about it.

What "Welfare Clause"

It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.” But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
[...]

But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare?
The Federalist Papers No. 16
 
That's right, so the more we cut, the better off the budget will be. Yes?

No jobs?

Ask Boeing how government funding influences their employment numbers.
 
Back
Top Bottom