• 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 says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

I think his point is that neither extreme works, so we have to reach a middleground that balances individual interests with the need for revenue and economic growth.

Neither a 99% tax nor a 1% tax would raise much money.

I believe I stated earlier that there IS a point of "too low" taxes. We're just not anywhere near that.
 
Well, I guess that this proves that Republicans love deficits. After all, that's what this was about, wasn't it? A pro-deficit versus anti-deficit vote? Because it's all about politics... and voting in favor of deficits is great politics :roll:

As has already been mentioned, votes correlated more closely with time in office than with party. There's more to this than the surface, as is almost always the case. But don't let that stop you from bashing the Republicans as the pro-deficit party....
i'm bashing no one. both dems and reps voted against this.
 
I believe I stated earlier that there IS a point of "too low" taxes. We're just not anywhere near that.

Then how is Sweden able to afford such an expansive social safety net, whereas we are not? It's not through higher levels of deficit spending (Sweden's debt-to-GDP ratio is about the same as ours) and it's certainly not through lower taxes.

I've always wondered why conservatives are so adamantly opposed to social programs if they truly believe that tax cuts generate more tax revenue than they cost. If this something-for-nothing mentality was actually true, Republicans could just cut taxes to pay for all of the new spending that the Democrats want. Everyone would be happy. ;)
 
Last edited:
When in control: Reagan's non-military spending cuts the largest in history; surplus of the 90s.

When not in control: Voted near-unanimously against stimulus, health care bill, etc.

Also, a slim majority voted against this particular method of reducing the deficit.


I'm not saying Republicans are always fiscally responsible. But to say that they are entirely fiscally un-responsible is just as untrue.

I don't think that the average conservative on DP is a good reflection of the average Republican in the Senate.



Completely true, though I don't think that necessarily proves they would be opposed to it now.

As a side note, if you look at the annual growth in "discretionary" spending under Bush, it's not particularly large once you exclude Homeland Security/Defense/Veterans - just 3.1%.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/tables.pdf (page 5)



Which would horrify the people who came up with SS in the first place. SS was designed as a safety net form of insurance for the destitute, not as a sole or critical source of income. Unless we fix the way people treat the program, we're screwed.

You both make the same mistake. Reagan and Bush where good, if you only look at the numbers that are good and don't look at the numbers where spending actually grew. That's a stupid way of doing it though. You have to look at the whole package, and both grew the deficit at rapid paces.
 
no one's ever grown a deficit like obama

he's unique!

indeed, according to the new york times, thanks to president putz INTEREST ON THE DEBT ALONE WILL REACH ONE TRIL PER YEAR BY ABOUT 2017

Wave of Debt Payments Facing US Government - CNBC

(story first appeared in the lady)

keynes is keeling over in his sarcophagus
 
You both make the same mistake. Reagan and Bush where good, if you only look at the numbers that are good and don't look at the numbers where spending actually grew. That's a stupid way of doing it though. You have to look at the whole package, and both grew the deficit at rapid paces.

You were talking about fiscal conservatism as a general policy. I think we can all agree that at a minimum, the increased spending due to 9/11 and the War in Afghanistan is not the "fault" of the president.
 
You both make the same mistake. Reagan and Bush where good, if you only look at the numbers that are good and don't look at the numbers where spending actually grew. That's a stupid way of doing it though. You have to look at the whole package, and both grew the deficit at rapid paces.

Except that looking at the whole package without actually looking at its contents is completely misleading. Reagan's deficits were entirely the result of increased military spending, and fiscal policy plays almost no role in determining military policy. Once the Cold War ended, military spending went down, but non-military spending, which had been drastically cut under Reagan, pretty much stayed put, resulting in the eventual balancing of the budget. That stayed until 9/11 came around, at which point military spending went way up again.

Do you really think that the budget under Clinton would have been balanced if he didn't happen to preside over one of the most peaceful decades in the last seventy years?
 
You were talking about fiscal conservatism as a general policy. I think we can all agree that at a minimum, the increased spending due to 9/11 and the War in Afghanistan is not the "fault" of the president.

Except that looking at the whole package without actually looking at its contents is completely misleading. Reagan's deficits were entirely the result of increased military spending, and fiscal policy plays almost no role in determining military policy. Once the Cold War ended, military spending went down, but non-military spending, which had been drastically cut under Reagan, pretty much stayed put, resulting in the eventual balancing of the budget. That stayed until 9/11 came around, at which point military spending went way up again.

Do you really think that the budget under Clinton would have been balanced if he didn't happen to preside over one of the most peaceful decades in the last seventy years?

Except the point you are both missing is that if you increase spending in one area, you have to cut in another to be able to claim fiscal responsibility. Continuing spending in some areas, while increasing it in others, is not fiscal responsibility without a corresponding increase in revenue.
 
Except the point you are both missing is that if you increase spending in one area, you have to cut in another to be able to claim fiscal responsibility. Continuing spending in some areas, while increasing it in others, is not fiscal responsibility without a corresponding increase in revenue.

I agree, which is why George W. Bush was hardly the fiscal conservative. However, Reagan cut domestic spending more than any other president, so your point there is moot.
 
You were talking about fiscal conservatism as a general policy. I think we can all agree that at a minimum, the increased spending due to 9/11 and the War in Afghanistan is not the "fault" of the president.

But why the tax cuts? An even better question is why the tax cuts on those who are less than likely to "spend"? A tax cut for the middle class would have been optimal, as consumption makes up nearly 70% of the economy.
 
I agree, which is why George W. Bush was hardly the fiscal conservative. However, Reagan cut domestic spending more than any other president, so your point there is moot.

No it is not moot. His cuts where far outstripped by his spending.
 
No it is not moot. His cuts where far outstripped by his spending.

Yes, his military spending, which, as I already said, is not ever influenced by fiscal concerns. I feel like I'm going in circles here.
 
Yes, his military spending, which, as I already said, is not ever influenced by fiscal concerns. I feel like I'm going in circles here.

Spending is a fiscal concern, no matter what it is for.
 
You were talking about fiscal conservatism as a general policy. I think we can all agree that at a minimum, the increased spending due to 9/11 and the War in Afghanistan is not the "fault" of the president.

Bull****! He went off the deep end with his involvement in Iraq. That's a trillion dollars this could country could use.
 
But why the tax cuts? An even better question is why the tax cuts on those who are less than likely to "spend"? A tax cut for the middle class would have been optimal, as consumption makes up nearly 70% of the economy.

10% of the population pays 50% of the taxes. Your cry for the "middle class" would carry some weight if our tax system wasn't so screwed up.
 
I think his point is that neither extreme works, so we have to reach a middleground that balances individual interests with the need for revenue and economic growth.

Neither a 99% tax nor a 1% tax would raise much money.

A 1% tax wouldn't raise much money for the government, but it would free up a large amount of capital for the private sector, which is the driving force of our economy. I'm not saying I support a 1% tax rate but we need to understand how beneficial they are for private businesses and individuals. The answer isn't half taxes and half spending cuts, as some would suggest, rather, it should be substantial spending cuts coupled with healthy tax cuts and a relaxing of onerous regulations.
 
Then how is Sweden able to afford such an expansive social safety net, whereas we are not? It's not through higher levels of deficit spending (Sweden's debt-to-GDP ratio is about the same as ours) and it's certainly not through lower taxes.

They're military spending as a percentage of GDP is about three percent less than ours, and that's not including expenditures on the VA, Homeland Security, or NASA.

I've always wondered why conservatives are so adamantly opposed to social programs if they truly believe that tax cuts generate more tax revenue than they cost. If this something-for-nothing mentality was actually true, Republicans could just cut taxes to pay for all of the new spending that the Democrats want. Everyone would be happy. ;)

Democrats can spend money faster than Americans are able to accumulate it...:2razz:
 
Spending is a fiscal concern, no matter what it is for.

Look, I know you're not stupid, and you don't usually have partisan blinders on, so I don't know what's stopping you from getting this. Look at it this way - you can't question a president's fiscal conservatism based on his military spending because his military spending is not optional, in the sense that fiscal concerns cannot overrule it.
 
10% of the population pays 50% of the taxes. Your cry for the "middle class" would carry some weight if our tax system wasn't so screwed up.

Precisely my point. You cannot pay for a war with tax cuts.... Got it? Your "record revenue" theory has already been addressed because it did not pay for the increased spending (hence a deficit). Kandahar explained it to you:lol:

You see, when you increase government spending, you will necessarily have "crowding out" be it via capital accounts relative to the current account (of which the money flows into sovereign debt markets), or through taxation (which frees up FDI from treasuries). Pick your poison. Although one option does not increase your deficit and does not give other nations power over what our government spends its money on. :roll:
 
Look, I know you're not stupid, and you don't usually have partisan blinders on, so I don't know what's stopping you from getting this. Look at it this way - you can't question a president's fiscal conservatism based on his military spending because his military spending is not optional, in the sense that fiscal concerns cannot overrule it.

Yes you can.... He did not pay for it! Is it fiscally conservative to rack up debt? :lol:
 
Look, I know you're not stupid, and you don't usually have partisan blinders on, so I don't know what's stopping you from getting this. Look at it this way - you can't question a president's fiscal conservatism based on his military spending because his military spending is not optional, in the sense that fiscal concerns cannot overrule it.

The amount to a degree is optional, and if you have to increase spending in one area, you need to lower spending other areas by an equal amount to balance it out, or you are not being fiscally responsible. Just cuz Reagan did it does not make it right, or fiscally appropriate.
 
The amount to a degree is optional, and if you have to increase spending in one area, you need to lower spending other areas by an equal amount to balance it out, or you are not being fiscally responsible. Just cuz Reagan did it does not make it right, or fiscally appropriate.

So did you miss the part about Reagan cutting domestic spending more than any other president? We're going in circles here.

And yes, it is to a degree optional, but fiscal concerns never ever play in to which option is taken, and they never have; that is why it's pointless to say that someone is not a fiscal conservative because they spent a lot on the military.
 
So did you miss the part about Reagan cutting domestic spending more than any other president? We're going in circles here.

And yes, it is to a degree optional, but fiscal concerns never ever play in to which option is taken, and they never have; that is why it's pointless to say that someone is not a fiscal conservative because they spent a lot on the military.

He did not cut domestic spending to the degree he raised military spending. He has no claim as a fiscal conservative, since he did not act fiscally conservative.
 
He did not cut domestic spending to the degree he raised military spending. He has no claim as a fiscal conservative, since he did not act fiscally conservative.

"Fiscal conservatives" do not exist. Each time they have run on that platform (and fooled the people into voting for them), they have spent like drunken sailors in a whore house when in power. In fact the Democrats have shown far more fiscal responsibility (Clinton for example) than any Republican president in recent history.
 
Back
Top Bottom