• 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!

State of the Union Address

A 1/3rd cut to Entitlement spending would be about $150 billion more per year than your 3/4ths cut to Military spending.

You save roughly $650 billion a year making a cut that's 5/12ths of a percent less (because as we all know, liberals care about the Percentage and not the raw number ;)).

So cutting 1/3 from something that makes up just over 1/2 of the government saves you roughly $150 billion more a year than cutting 3/4ths out of something that makes up just under 1/4th of the government.

That's 19.5 Trillion over your same 30 year time period. That's 2.5 trillion more than your total when you combine your 3/4ths of a cut with the bush tax cut removal.

Ah my earlier proposal...the 1/3rd from both? That'd be 27 Trillion over 30 years...a full 10 trillion more than yours.

Can you be more specific? Are you talking about cutting Medicare and Social Security? Or are you including them as entitlement programs? Because if you don't include either social security or medicaid, all other mandatory spending and discretionary spending totaled 1.1 trillion (in the FY 2010) and defense spending was 700 billion. Because in that case, a 1/3 cut of entitlement spending is approximately equal to a 1/2 cut of defense spending.

It doesn't look like social security reform is going anywhere right now, so medicare reform and large cuts in discretionary spending along with a 1/3 cut in defense could probably save about 500 billion a year.

But neither your statement nor mine means much of anything because it's much easier to say "cut defense spending" or "cut entitlements" than actually determining specific funding and expenditures you are cutting.
 
I didn't ignore it at all, in fact I noted that the only way in the last 30 years we have significantly reduced the deficit is when we both cut spending and increased taxes.

But you DIDN'T mention it in the post that included the link to the polls.

The congressional Republicans rejected the debt commissions proposals to increase taxes as it goes against the pledge they made to their benefactors.

No WRONG AGAIN, the debt commission (Simpson/Bowles) proposals never made it to Congress.
 
I'll give him a hand for getting to the root of the issue, which is health care costs -- not who pays them. Because ultimately someone has to pay them, and that is sucking the life blood out of our economy. Or are you proposing that we just let people die?

What are you going to do when you cut Medicare by one third? ARE you going to let old people die because they can't pay the doctor or hospital? Serious question.

So you are both right. Clearly we can't right this ship until we get Medicare costs in line, and clearly we cannot get Medicare costs in line unless we address the cost of health care itself.

You can call facts sacred cows if it make you happy. it still doesn't change the truth of what I am saying.

For example, How does cutting medicare do anything to reduce the high health care cost?

Now much of our National Debt is due to SS?

Government spending accounts for roughly 60+% of all medical spending in the U.S.
Soooo, cutting government spending in medical care will bring down the costs.

And no, that doesn't mean letting people die, it means those who use government as a source of medical treatment, will have to share a greater burden of the cost.
 
Now much of our National Debt is due to SS?

As a percent of the national debt, it would be directly proportional to its percentage of total expenditures over a given amount of time. A simple analogy would be a household budget. If a family spent $10 total, and they spent $5 on food and $5 on water, assuming they financed half their expenditures with wages ($5) and the other half with debt ($5), the food would be responsible for 50% of the debt ($2.50) and the water would be responsible for the other 50% of the debt ($2.50). The only way this would not be the case is if you subjectively (arbitrarily) assigned priorities to each budgetary item and then calculated the percentage of debt needed to finance them on that basis.

Brian
 
Last edited:
You can call facts sacred cows if it make you happy. it still doesn't change the truth of what I am saying.

For example, How does cutting medicare do anything to reduce the high health care cost?

Now much of our National Debt is due to SS?

Why is SS which was established as a retirement supplement put on budget. Although SS didn't cause the debt it made the debt look better than it actually is because now there are over 2.5 trillion in IOU's that have to be funded. Had SS not been used to fund govt. operations the debt would be at least 2.5 trillion higher.
 
Last edited:
Please cite the portion of our National Debt attributable to SS. Because everything I've read is that through SS payments from payroll taxes, there is funding through 2036.

The U.S. government owes the SS admin about 2.6 trillion.
Bonds are debt instruments and the government is deeply in debt to itself.
 
Please cite the portion of our National Debt attributable to SS.

Cite the portion? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Because everything I've read is that through SS payments from payroll taxes, there is funding through 2036.

Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at or how its relevant to what I said.

Brian
 
Government spending accounts for roughly 60+% of all medical spending in the U.S.
Soooo, cutting government spending in medical care will bring down the costs.

And no, that doesn't mean letting people die, it means those who use government as a source of medical treatment, will have to share a greater burden of the cost.


Fail. That does nothing to reduce costs for health care. It just reduces health care.
 
I am watching a couple hot russian blondes shrieking at one another. sure beats watching a puke doing his best to ruin our country

Which one of the 535 "Pukes" would you be talking about?

You know, all the same Pukes that probably watch the hot Russian blondes in their plush Washington offices at our expense?
 
As a percent of the national debt, it would be directly proportional to its percentage of total expenditures over a given amount of time. A simple analogy would be a household budget. If a family spent $10 total, and they spent $5 on food and $5 on water, assuming they financed half their expenditures with wages ($5) and the other half with debt ($5), the food would be responsible for 50% of the debt ($2.50) and the water would be responsible for the other 50% of the debt ($2.50). The only way this would not be the case is if you subjectively (arbitrarily) assigned priorities to each budgetary item and then calculated the percentage of debt needed to finance them on that basis.

Brian

Thanks for your opinion!
 
Fail. That does nothing to reduce costs for health care. It just reduces health care.

I'm sorry but you can reduce costs by reducing spending.
It does not necessarily reduce health care, maybe inefficient and unnecessary health care.

Of course you will never, ever agree with this.
That's why Zyph said it was a sacred cow issue to you.
 
How does a liberal cut Federal Income taxes for someone not paying any? Absolutely amazing how you are so concerned about how much money gets to the Federal Govt. and thus is wasted by that govt.

Nice try at moving the goal posts inside a different stadium altogether. you asked you got the biggest tax cut. I told you. The capital gains tax saved Mitt $4 million bucks. And you complain and whine about some grunt not paying a few grand because President Bush and the Republican Congress voted to have them not pay in 2001 and 2003.

You ask questions - your get the answers - then you try to change the questions.

Amazing really.
 
Nice try at moving the goal posts inside a different stadium altogether. you asked you got the biggest tax cut. I told you. The capital gains tax saved Mitt $4 million bucks. And you complain and whine about some grunt not paying a few grand because President Bush and the Republican Congress voted to have them not pay in 2001 and 2003.

You ask questions - your get the answers - then you try to change the questions.

Amazing really.

Yes you did, the rich that pay most of the taxes got a bigger tax cut than those that don't pay any FIT, Duh!
 
I wouldn't characterize it as an "opinion". It's a simple conveyance of basic arithmetic and financial principles.

Brian

Brian...just a word of caution. Basic arithmetic in DP can get you in a world of trouble. Good luck...and have fun.
 
The U.S. government owes the SS admin about 2.6 trillion.
Bonds are debt instruments and the government is deeply in debt to itself.

That's right, the general fund owes SS 2.6 Trillion, so you look for ways for the General fund to pay that money back that was taken from the fund we all paid into for retirement insurance. Since a lack of revenues due to the tax cuts for the last 30 years required us to borrow money from SS in the first place, it seems obvious where the money should come from to pay it back.

Sounds like to me you want absolve your responsibility for this money owed to seniors.
 
That's right, the general fund owes SS 2.6 Trillion, so you look for ways for the General fund to pay that money back that was taken from the fund we all paid into for retirement insurance. Since a lack of revenues due to the tax cuts for the last 30 years required us to borrow money from SS in the first place, it seems obvious where the money should come from to pay it back.

Sounds like to me you want absolve your responsibility for this money owed to seniors.

Broken record.
How many times have you blamed "the tax cuts for the last 30 years" for everything?
 
Government spending accounts for roughly 60+% of all medical spending in the U.S.
Soooo, cutting government spending in medical care will bring down the costs.

And no, that doesn't mean letting people die, it means those who use government as a source of medical treatment, will have to share a greater burden of the cost.

No, it won't bring down the costs. It will just shift the costs to someone else. If anything it will increase the costs because Medicare and the VA are more efficient than strictly private insurance.
 
Broken record.
How many times have you blamed "the tax cuts for the last 30 years" for everything?

Isn't it sad when the American worker keeping more of their own money is the reason for all the problems we have in this country today?
 
I wouldn't characterize it as an "opinion". It's a simple conveyance of basic arithmetic and financial principles.

Brian

You forgot to factor in the 2.6 trillion dollars owed to SS by the general fund. Please cite your source that shows SS is responsible for any of the National Debt.
 
The other side of the coin that many do not see...

Social pressure to have fewer children and use less resources. And spend less of your earnings. Fewer children means few workers and taxpayers to fund the retirements. Fewer healthy individuals paying health insurance premiums to pay for the increasing health care costs for a population that lives longer and longer.
 
Broken record.
How many times have you blamed "the tax cuts for the last 30 years" for everything?


Why would we have taken $2.6 trillion from SS over the last 30 years if we had plenty of tax receipts coming in? You don't believe in paying your debts?
 
Last edited:
No, it won't bring down the costs. It will just shift the costs to someone else. If anything it will increase the costs because Medicare and the VA are more efficient than strictly private insurance.

Changes to programs, cause changes to behavior.
When people have to spend more of their own money, to get things they need, they are much more careful.

Adjusting the Medicare payment scheme, to encourage more mindful spending, by actual consumers isn't a bad thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom