• 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!

White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source


What was his proposed legislation? Auditing the Fed except in the instances of:
(1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or non-private international financing organization;

(2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations;

(3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or

(4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to clauses (1)-(3) of this subsection.

The funny part is:
The Fed is already routinely audited at the same level that DeMint’s bill would allow.

source

I always find it comical when the Gang of 5 talks finance. Why? It lacks any substance or insight;)
 
I simply stated a fact which corrected your misconception that Congress does not control the printing press. You really do not need to respond beyond a simple 'yes, you're right, it does say that, right in the Constitution - thank you very much'.

They gave that power to the Fed. Try again:2wave:

Which is why they do not control the money supply. Or are you saying they do?
 
They gave that power to the Fed. Try again
I already adressed this - the power, while currently delegated to the fed, still remains ultimately with Congress, and may be recalled at any time, by simply passing legislation to that effect.

Now, stop embarrasing yourself and simply admit that you were wrong.
 
Do any of you folks who are blaming Obama for the deficit have any actual solutions for what we can DO to prevent the deficit from ballooning over the next decade?

I would start by identifying and establishing strict criteria for distressed or vulnerable demographics - children, the infirm, the elderly - and restructuring social programs so as to specifically target these demographics and them alone. Everyone else would just have to do what every other able-bodied adult in the history of mankind has done - take personal responsibility for your own well-being. If you can't do this on your own, then you probably deserve to die anyway.

I would initiate tort reform in health care and allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines. I would also remove regulations from health insurance companies that mandate certain types of coverage. It's common knowledge that the least regulated sectors of the health care industry have seen a decline in prices along with an increase in quality; think plastic surgery and laser eye surgery.

I would eliminate the minimum wage and eliminate any sort of "fair trade" agreements.

I would identify all non-essential foreign military bases and decommission them.

I would cut foreign aid by at least 50%.

I would legalize marijuana and tax it. I would rescind all Federal drug laws, permitting states and municipalities to regulate as they see fit, and taxing them accordingly.

I would eliminate all funding for the NEA.

I would eliminate public financing of political campaigns.

I would retain the unspent stimulus money and use it to pay down the debt.

I would cut taxes.
 
I already adressed this - the power, while currently delegated to the fed, still remains ultimately with Congress, and may be recalled at any time, by simply passing legislation to that effect.

Lets be truthful for a second. The legislation of which you are harboring on is:
1. Reservation of Right to Amend
The right to amend, alter, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved.

Now, i agree that the congress can abolish the Fed. However, that does not mean they "have the keys to the printing press."

Now, stop embarrassing yourself and simply admit that you were wrong.

You stated that congress has the power to control the money supply, and i said they do not. You agreed that they do not currently have this power, and offer as your argument "they could".

Goobieman could be a democrat if he wanted to. He doesn't, so he is not a democrat.

A correct statement would be, "the congress has the authority to repeal the Federal Reserve Act." You were wrong and are just twisting words to save face for the nth time this year.
 
Now, i agree that the congress can abolish the Fed. However, that does not mean they "have the keys to the printing press."
The constitution disagrees with you. The power is granted by the Constitution to Congress, and is plenary. That Congress delegates this power in no way removes this power from congress any more than you letting your kid borrow your car mean that it is no longer your car.

But, you may continue to embarrass yourself at your lesiure - you were wrong, I corrected you, we both know it. Get over it, and move on.
 
The constitution disagrees with you. The power is granted by the Constitution to Congress, and is plenary. That Congress delegates this power in no way removes this power from congress any more than you letting your kid borrow your car mean that it is no longer your car.

But, you may continue to embarrass yourself at your lesiure - you were wrong, I corrected you, we both know it. Get over it, and move on.

Goobie: Controlling monetary policy (the central theme in this discussion) is not the same as being able to abolish the Fed.

The fact that you cannot accept (admit is a better word) this is actually quite telling.

So lets test it.

Does congress control the money supply at this point in time? If you answer no, then they do not. If you answer yes, then you are a fool.
 
Goobie: Controlling monetary policy (the central theme in this discussion) is not the same as being able to abolish the Fed.

The fact that you cannot accept (admit is a better word) this is actually quite telling.

So lets test it.

Does congress control the money supply at this point in time? If you answer no, then they do not. If you answer yes, then you are a fool.
Or, you can decide to -not- get over it and continue to embarrass yourself.
Your call; I'm going home.
 
Or, you can decide to -not- get over it and continue to embarrass yourself.
Your call; I'm going home.

That would probably be best.

I guess alcohol is still illegal (or is it:shock: ) since they "have the authority" to amend the constitution.

You should really stick to your day job.... We refer to people like you as "logic failures".
 
Politically impossible. Congress will never do this.

The Senate recently voted to do exactly that in their health care bill. They're a vote short now, but it's hardly unthinkable that some version of an independent Medicare/Medicaid commission could pass.

Goobieman said:
Can you show that this will provide any meaningful savings?

You dispute that raising the retirement age will save money? If the retirement age is 68 instead of 65, then everyone aged 65-67 who would otherwise be getting social security will not be. The savings seem pretty obvious.

Goobieman said:
And what about the negative consequences for doing so?
Will the AARP ever allow such a thing?

They'll certainly be against it, that's for sure. It just becomes a question of how much they're willing to fight a Democratic president on something that won't take effect for 10 years (and therefore won't affect many of their current members), how many Democrats are in Congress in the next session, and how much the Republicans (and hopefully the president) are actually willing to push the issue.

But social security is on a relatively manageable track anyway; Medicare/Medicaid are the entitlement programs that really have the potential to be a financial time bomb.

Goobieman said:
Can you show that this will provide any meaningful savings?
And what about the negative consequences for doing so?

The meaningful savings come from the fact that catastrophic health plans are more likely to reduce health care costs overall, as opposed to comprehensive plans. The problem with comprehensive plans is that the people using the service has no incentive to keep his costs down, because he doesn't pay for them (other than a small co-pay). That's why I'd rather transition to a catastrophic health insurance system. That way, no one would go bankrupt when they had a health emergency, but overall costs could be kept down for routine/common procedures.

As for the negative consequences of doing so...I can't really think of many. A few people who are already sick would probably be worse off for the first few years under the new system since they'd have higher deductibles (or higher taxes if they stuck with their old plans), but in the long run this would balance out.

Goobieman said:
Do those that are means-tested out have to pay into the system?
If the answer is no, will the AARP ever allow such a thing?

Yes, they would still have to pay into the system. The solutions I provided are for a specific goal: Balancing the budget. I'm not interested in dismantling social security just for the sake of dismantling social security, I'm focusing on balancing the budget. If you reduce expenditures AND receipts, that isn't necessarily going to help the budget. My idea with this solution was to reduce expenditures while keeping receipts constant.

Goobieman said:
Can you show that this will provide any meaningful savings?
And what about the negative consequences for doing so?

I can't show you ironclad empirical data for this one since the economy is different than it was in the 1990s. But that's the closest we have: When the Bush tax cuts went into effect, it turned a small surplus into a large deficit. If taxes were raised a couple percentage points, it should have a similar reverse effect. The exact amount of this is impossible to measure though.

As for the negative consequences of doing so, assuming the economy recovers by 2012 they should be relatively minor. The economy did OK during the 1990s when income taxes were a couple percentage points higher.

Goobieman said:
Politically impossible. Congress will never do this.

These types of commissions already exist for things like military base closures. They just need to be expanded to the entire DoD.
 
I would start by identifying and establishing strict criteria for distressed or vulnerable demographics - children, the infirm, the elderly - and restructuring social programs so as to specifically target these demographics and them alone. Everyone else would just have to do what every other able-bodied adult in the history of mankind has done - take personal responsibility for your own well-being. If you can't do this on your own, then you probably deserve to die anyway.

First of all, thank you for offering actual solutions, although I disagree with some of them. It's nice to see someone who actually cares about the deficit instead of merely blaming Obama for the deficit.

Regarding this point: I mostly agree. Social programs should primarily be geared toward the poor. I don't mind if wealthier people use government services as long as it's something they directly pay into in the form of user fees (e.g. the post office, public universities, a public health care option), but I agree that social programs - especially social security - are far too broad in their scope.

Ethereal said:
I would initiate tort reform in health care and allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines. I would also remove regulations from health insurance companies that mandate certain types of coverage. It's common knowledge that the least regulated sectors of the health care industry have seen a decline in prices along with an increase in quality; think plastic surgery and laser eye surgery.

I completely agree. I'm skeptical that tort reform will actually generate much in the way of savings, but it's a good idea nevertheless. I'm also a big fan of lowering regulations on the types of coverage that are mandated. In fact, I would go a step farther and actually use the tax code to ENCOURAGE people to get catastrophic plans instead of comprehensive plans. If people get taxed on their employer's health insurance, expensive health insurance plans will be much less appealing to the average person.

Ethereal said:
I would eliminate the minimum wage and eliminate any sort of "fair trade" agreements.

Agreed. While this would help grow the economy in the long term (and thus increase the tax base) I'm hesitant to include these kind of solutions in deficit projections, since they involve a lot of speculation.

Ethereal said:
I would identify all non-essential foreign military bases and decommission them.

Agreed, although I suspect our definitions of non-essential probably differ quite a bit.

Ethereal said:
I would cut foreign aid by at least 50%.

I would legalize marijuana and tax it. I would rescind all Federal drug laws, permitting states and municipalities to regulate as they see fit, and taxing them accordingly.

I would eliminate all funding for the NEA.

I would eliminate public financing of political campaigns.

Meh...I think the overall impact of all of these things on the federal deficit would be approximately nil.

Ethereal said:
I would retain the unspent stimulus money and use it to pay down the debt.

I'd rather pump money into the economy now and worry about the deficit once we're back on track. We still have double-digit unemployment.

Ethereal said:
I would cut taxes.

This would have exactly the opposite effect, unless the tax cuts are geared toward specific things that demonstrably generate enough revenue to pay for themselves. And there aren't many taxes that fall into that category. The corporate tax MAYBE...but certainly not the income or payroll taxes.
 
That would probably be best.

I guess alcohol is still illegal (or is it:shock: ) since they "have the authority" to amend the constitution.

You should really stick to your day job.... We refer to people like you as "logic failures".
Ah -- there's the puerility I was expecting. Thanks for not disappointing!

Fact of the matter is you cannot in any way refute what I said, and you know it.
 
The Senate recently voted to do exactly that in their health care bill. They're a vote short now, but it's hardly unthinkable that some version of an independent Medicare/Medicaid commission could pass.
What you suggent is different, however, in that it deals with the cash cow that is medicare/medicaide. These things garner far too many votes for Congress to give up control.

You dispute that raising the retirement age will save money?
I asked you to support the claim. You may begin when you are ready.

They'll certainly be against it, that's for sure.
Pretty big stumbling block there.
You also havent discussed the negative consequences.

The meaningful savings come from the fact that catastrophic health plans are more likely to reduce health care costs overall, as opposed to comprehensive plans.
Yes, that's your claim. Support it. Show the savings and how they are significant.

As for the negative consequences of doing so...I can't really think of many.
Convenient. I'll try that next time.

Yes, they would still have to pay into the system.
And so, the AARP would agree to this?
Doesnt it then reduce SocSec to just another program designed to redistribute wealth?

I can't show you ironclad empirical data for this one...
So you cannot show the meaningful savings or the negative consequences.

These types of commissions already exist for things like military base closures. They just need to be expanded to the entire DoD.
These commissions then have their fidnings voted on. That's not what you suggested. You also ignored the idea of expanding them to other spenidng programs.
 
Last edited:
Ah -- there's the puerility I was expecting. Thanks for not disappointing!

Fact of the matter is you cannot in any way refute what I said, and you know it.

Your own statement:

Irrelevant to my response - the fact remains that Congress already has the keys to the printing press.

Definition of has: Third person singular present tense of have.

Definition of have: To be in possession of

Using the same example from a previous post, if they gave the keys away, then they do not have them. Understand the how the english language works? Have signifies possession. Until they abolish the Fed, Congress does not have the ''keys to the printing press."

:lamo
 
Your own statement:
Definition of has: Third person singular present tense of have.
Definition of have: To be in possession of
Using the same example from a previous post, if they gave the keys away, then they do not have them. Understand the how the english language works? Have signifies possession. Until they abolish the Fed, Congress does not have the ''keys to the printing press."
:lamo
Were you -trying- to illustrate that puerility? If so, bravo!
Oh well - we all have our flaws. Enjoy yours.
 
But social security is on a relatively manageable track anyway; Medicare/Medicaid are the entitlement programs that really have the potential to be a financial time bomb.

Estimates for the unfunded liability of Socialist Security range from 60 trillion to 160 trillion dollars.

In what way is this "manageable"?

People discuss Medicaid/Medicare because the Democrats are trying to socialize medicine.

NO ONE is discussing the SS Titanic, aka the Socialist Security Titanic.
 
I can't show you ironclad empirical data for this one since the economy is different than it was in the 1990s. But that's the closest we have: When the Bush tax cuts went into effect, it turned a small surplus into a large deficit.

There was no surplus.

So much for your argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom