• 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!

Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

Conservative said:
As pointed out by this Administration border security is the responsibilty of the Federal Govt. as they sued the state of Arizona over that issue. So instead of asking that question on this forum I suggest asking your elected officials why? You will find out it has something to with voters and power but they won't tell you that.
Click to expand...
the fed. govt. takes our tax dollars and spends it on "defense" supposedly yet 16 million illegals are here why? see i can keep repeating myself too.
 
Taboon said:
As I pointed out, I agree that there are some areas that can be more efficiently managed if those expenditures were localized. However, I do not expect that all the money that the federal government spends in areas such as education would be wiped out by doing so. There are some redundancies, yes, but not everything the federal government provides is redundant. Thus, a shift in burden to the states would result in additional state expenditures in those areas.
Also, if you do believe that Medicaid is something the states should run completely on their own, then additional expenditures by the states would be required there as well. If Medicaid services are not cut, additional funding would be necessary at the state level to make up for the unfunded expenditures currently paid for by the federal government. So, I would not agree that we do not have a revenue problem. We do have both a spending problem and a revenue problem.
Click to expand...


If the responsibilities are shifted to the states then the size of the Federal Govt. will be reduced and if that raises costs to the states then individuals have a choice whether to pay for those higher costs or move to a lower cost state, one that doesn't have any state income taxes will offset the higher costs to those states.

You seem to have decided that state costs will go up if the Federal Govt. shifts those responsibilities back to the states. That may or many not happen but my bet is the citizens of the state will have some say in those costs and decide whether or not it is feasible and required. My bet is there is more effeciency than we are getting now. If not, then that is the problem that the people of the states have to handle. We don't have that luxury now at the Federal level.

Some states are opting out of Medicaid so we shall see if they can handle it better. Federal mandates always come with strings attached and although they provide initial funding once that funding is spent states then are responsible for future expenditures.

As I pointed out and the numbers prove, federal revenue went up after the tax rate cuts. No one here has explained why?
 
Conservative said:
If the responsibilities are shifted to the states then the size of the Federal Govt. will be reduced and if that raises costs to the states then individuals have a choice whether to pay for those higher costs or move to a lower cost state, one that doesn't have any state income taxes will offset the higher costs to those states.

You seem to have decided that state costs will go up if the Federal Govt. shifts those responsibilities back to the states. That may or many not happen but my bet is the citizens of the state will have some say in those costs and decide whether or not it is feasible and required. My bet is there is more effeciency than we are getting now. If not, then that is the problem that the people of the states have to handle. We don't have that luxury now at the Federal level.

Some states are opting out of Medicaid so we shall see if they can handle it better. Federal mandates always come with strings attached and although they provide initial funding once that funding is spent states then are responsible for future expenditures.

As I pointed out and the numbers prove, federal revenue went up after the tax rate cuts. No one here has explained why?
Click to expand...

Lower taxes means less inclination to cheat on taxes using high priced lawyers, and those who have a lot of stocks in hand when the tax rates go down, you might just decide to sell the money makers while the taxes are low...
Wanna bet that a lot of selling will occur before Dec. 31, if it appears that Obama gets his way on canceling the low tax rates for the "rich"...? Should be a noticeable boost in tax revenues on that alone.
 
UtahBill said:
Lower taxes means less inclination to cheat on taxes using high priced lawyers, and those who have a lot of stocks in hand when the tax rates go down, you might just decide to sell the money makers while the taxes are low...
Wanna bet that a lot of selling will occur before Dec. 31, if it appears that Obama gets his way on canceling the low tax rates for the "rich"...? Should be a noticeable boost in tax revenues on that alone.
Click to expand...

I don't believe Obama will get his way regarding raising taxes on the rich. I am still waiting for Liblady to show me the 600 billion that she claims will cost the Govt. Her silence like that of all other class warfare people is deafening.
 
Conservative said:
I don't believe Obama will get his way regarding raising taxes on the rich. I am still waiting for Liblady to show me the 600 billion that she claims will cost the Govt. Her silence like that of all other class warfare people is deafening.
Click to expand...

Time will tell, as for the 600 billion, nobody knows and everybody guesses. Media have reported some govt official guesses at higher numbers, but all they are doing is repeating someone else's guess. Nearly everybody does that especially in absence of accurate data available to make better guesses.
The class warfare and envy mantra got old a long time ago, and the constant repeating of it is just lame propaganda, the type usually aimed at the ignorant and uneducated who are gullible enough to accept it, and then repeat it.
 
UtahBill said:
Time will tell, as for the 600 billion, nobody knows and everybody guesses. Media have reported some govt official guesses at higher numbers, but all they are doing is repeating someone else's guess. Nearly everybody does that especially in absence of accurate data available to make better guesses.
The class warfare and envy mantra got old a long time ago, and the constant repeating of it is just lame propaganda, the type usually aimed at the ignorant and uneducated who are gullible enough to accept it, and then repeat it.
Click to expand...

The number posted by the Administration is 700 billion over 10 years or 70 billion a year. Seems that the Obama supporters focus on the 700 billion instead of the impact yearly which is 70 billion. I don't buy either figure because Administration projections have yet to be right on any issue and they seem to have a problem understanding human behavior and even Congressional behavior. There is no evidence that raising taxes during a recession will put 16 million people back to work or that there will be any addition money getting to the treasury or that even if it did it would be put towards reducing the debt. Just imagine how much a 70 billion increase in revenue is going to have on a 1.3 trillion deficit? That is liberal logic.
 
Conservative said:
If the responsibilities are shifted to the states then the size of the Federal Govt. will be reduced and if that raises costs to the states then individuals have a choice whether to pay for those higher costs or move to a lower cost state, one that doesn't have any state income taxes will offset the higher costs to those states.

You seem to have decided that state costs will go up if the Federal Govt. shifts those responsibilities back to the states. That may or many not happen but my bet is the citizens of the state will have some say in those costs and decide whether or not it is feasible and required. My bet is there is more effeciency than we are getting now. If not, then that is the problem that the people of the states have to handle. We don't have that luxury now at the Federal level.

Some states are opting out of Medicaid so we shall see if they can handle it better. Federal mandates always come with strings attached and although they provide initial funding once that funding is spent states then are responsible for future expenditures.

As I pointed out and the numbers prove, federal revenue went up after the tax rate cuts. No one here has explained why?
Click to expand...

What I pointed out is if the current services that the federal government provides is moved to the states, all things staying the same (i.e. the same equal services), costs that the states are responsible for will have to go up given the fact that states need to have a balanced budget and a lot of costs (i.e. Medicaid) incurred by the federal government are not being funded with tax revenues. I don't disagree that the states will have the right to cut those services but if those services remain the same a significant burden will be transferred from the federal government to the states. I don't consider that a tax reduction if I am now paying less in federal taxes but more in state taxes.
 
Conservative said:
The number posted by the Administration is 700 billion over 10 years or 70 billion a year. Seems that the Obama supporters focus on the 700 billion instead of the impact yearly which is 70 billion. I don't buy either figure because Administration projections have yet to be right on any issue and they seem to have a problem understanding human behavior and even Congressional behavior. There is no evidence that raising taxes during a recession will put 16 million people back to work or that there will be any addition money getting to the treasury or that even if it did it would be put towards reducing the debt. Just imagine how much a 70 billion increase in revenue is going to have on a 1.3 trillion deficit? That is liberal logic.
Click to expand...

the logic isn't liberal, or conservative. Math is math....
Saving where you can, regardless of the amount, is preferred to not saving at all. A little here, a little there, it adds up. It took me and the wife 30 years to accumulate our "wealth", and we did much better than many of our friends with much higher incomes. I call it being frugal, others call it cheap. But whatever you call it, it adds up. How much did it add up, in exact dollars? Who knows? It was worth the doing....even if it can't be equated to some number...
 
Taboon said:
What I pointed out is if the current services that the federal government provides is moved to the states, all things staying the same (i.e. the same equal services), costs that the states are responsible for will have to go up given the fact that states need to have a balanced budget and a lot of costs (i.e. Medicaid) incurred by the federal government are not being funded with tax revenues. I don't disagree that the states will have the right to cut those services but if those services remain the same a significant burden will be transferred from the federal government to the states. I don't consider that a tax reduction if I am now paying less in federal taxes but more in state taxes.
Click to expand...
Of course, SOME states have an advantage. Nevada gets enough in "sin" taxes that there is no state income tax. Wyoming has enough oil and gas that state income tax isn't needed. There are others..
Alaska has reverse taxation, the state pays its citizens some of the revenue from oil and gas.
But that doesn't mean people will flock to those states. I mean, to qualify for no state taxes, you have to LIVE there.:2razz:
 
Taboon said:
What I pointed out is if the current services that the federal government provides is moved to the states, all things staying the same (i.e. the same equal services), costs that the states are responsible for will have to go up given the fact that states need to have a balanced budget and a lot of costs (i.e. Medicaid) incurred by the federal government are not being funded with tax revenues. I don't disagree that the states will have the right to cut those services but if those services remain the same a significant burden will be transferred from the federal government to the states. I don't consider that a tax reduction if I am now paying less in federal taxes but more in state taxes.
Click to expand...

Granted, but my point remains many of the "services" provided by the Federal Govt. are IMO state responsibilities and never should have gotten there. It really boils down to the role of the Federal Govt. and that seems to vary by individuals. It really is time for people to go back to the basics and actually read a history book as well as the Constitution as it was written.

If you are paying more in state taxes and less in Federal Taxes you have a choice to make as some state taxes are much higher than others. Compare state taxes in NY, California, Illinois for example to TX. The choice then is yours, are you willing to pay more to live in those states or will do you what many are doing, move to a lower tax state? It is much easier moving to another state than moving to another country.
 
UtahBill said:
Of course, SOME states have an advantage. Nevada gets enough in "sin" taxes that there is no state income tax. Wyoming has enough oil and gas that state income tax isn't needed. There are others..
Alaska has reverse taxation, the state pays its citizens some of the revenue from oil and gas.
But that doesn't mean people will flock to those states. I mean, to qualify for no state taxes, you have to LIVE there.:2razz:
Click to expand...

Isn't that socialism?

I mean, not all citizens of Alaska work in the oil and gas sectors, why are they entitled to something they didn't earn?

And why wouldn't Sarah Palin (tough on communism/socialism/gay/muslim/black liberation theology/Kenyan anti-colonialist/marxist/ ideas) be against such a blatant form of Wealth Redistribution?
 
Jetboogieman said:
Isn't that socialism?

I mean, not all citizens of Alaska work in the oil and gas sectors, why are they entitled to something they didn't earn?

And why wouldn't Sarah Palin (tough on communism/socialism/gay/muslim/black liberation theology/Kenyan anti-colonialist/marxist/ ideas) be against such a blatant form of Wealth Redistribution?
Click to expand...

Agreed, Alaska is probably the most Socialist type state in the Union! Not to mention the fact that they get a lot of handouts related to earmarks in comparison to other states. Ha, funny how that works considering how "conservative" they proclaim to be.
 
UtahBill said:
the logic isn't liberal, or conservative. Math is math....
Saving where you can, regardless of the amount, is preferred to not saving at all. A little here, a little there, it adds up. It took me and the wife 30 years to accumulate our "wealth", and we did much better than many of our friends with much higher incomes. I call it being frugal, others call it cheap. But whatever you call it, it adds up. How much did it add up, in exact dollars? Who knows? It was worth the doing....even if it can't be equated to some number...
Click to expand...

Math is indeed math but when it comes to the economy and taxes human behavior has to be taken into account. The problem liberals have is they ignore human behavior and believe that if there are a 1000 taxpayers paying $100 a year in taxes that is $100000 and if that tax rate is cut 25% those 1000 people pay 75,000 which is a 25,000 reduction in tax revenue. The problem is human behavior kicks in and that 25000 in tax reduction is put back into the economy in some form and generates more taxpayers. That is how both Reagan and Bush grew revenue after their tax cuts. Human behavior kicked in, the consumer spent that 25000 and it had a multiplier affect on the economy. More taxpayers means more tax revenue. Right now 16 million unemployed Americans aren't paying much in income or any other taxes as they don't have the money to spend.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Isn't that socialism?

I mean, not all citizens of Alaska work in the oil and gas sectors, why are they entitled to something they didn't earn?

And why wouldn't Sarah Palin (tough on communism/socialism/gay/muslim/black liberation theology/Kenyan anti-colonialist/marxist/ ideas) be against such a blatant form of Wealth Redistribution?
Click to expand...

What you fail to grasp is the people of Alaska have decided what to do with the money that comes from their assets, not a bureaucrat in D.C. and that is the way it is supposed to work. A Federal Bureaucrat in D.C. deciding on how Alaskans should handle their economy is what got us into this mess. Leave the states alone and let them handle their own individual responsibilities. If or when they make a mistake like California, Illinios, NY, and other states have done, let them figure it out. There are consequences for failure everywhere except in the liberal world.
 
Conservative said:
Granted, but my point remains many of the "services" provided by the Federal Govt. are IMO state responsibilities and never should have gotten there. It really boils down to the role of the Federal Govt. and that seems to vary by individuals. It really is time for people to go back to the basics and actually read a history book as well as the Constitution as it was written.

If you are paying more in state taxes and less in Federal Taxes you have a choice to make as some state taxes are much higher than others. Compare state taxes in NY, California, Illinois for example to TX. The choice then is yours, are you willing to pay more to live in those states or will do you what many are doing, move to a lower tax state? It is much easier moving to another state than moving to another country.
Click to expand...

History books can only tell us how things were done in the past, not necessarily how they should be done now.
The constitution, as it was written, is a living document. It wasn't chiseled in stone for a reason. Times change, we adjust for the changes.
And I don't think much of the past...hauling water from a stream, pooping in an outhouse, wiping with corn cobs....:2razz:
 
Conservative said:
What you fail to grasp is the people of Alaska have decided what to do with the money that comes from their assets, not a bureaucrat in D.C. and that is the way it is supposed to work. A Federal Bureaucrat in D.C. deciding on how Alaskans should handle their economy is what got us into this mess. Leave the states alone and let them handle their own individual responsibilities. If or when they make a mistake like California, Illinios, NY, and other states have done, let them figure it out. There are consequences for failure everywhere except in the liberal world.
Click to expand...

So you can't prove that Alaska isn't socialist, and that Sarah Palin continued this socialist...

So you'd ACTUALLY be electing a socialist if you elected her. Given her "track record" :2razz:

P.S. get a ****ing sense of humour, you're harshing my mellow :2razz:
 
UtahBill said:
History books can only tell us how things were done in the past, not necessarily how they should be done now.
The constitution, as it was written, is a living document. It wasn't chiseled in stone for a reason. Times change, we adjust for the changes.
And I don't think much of the past...hauling water from a stream, pooping in an outhouse, wiping with corn cobs....:2razz:
Click to expand...

The basic principles in the Constitution are indeed written in stone, civic rights being an example along with the role of the Federal Govt. Our Founders knew that power corrupts and that is why they proposed a small Central Govt. and boy where they right. Our Federal Govt. is corrupt and as long as we the people allow that to happen the country is going to generate the results we have today, 14 trillion in debt and massive attempts at redistributing wealth. I prefer our Founder's way and putting personal responsibility back into our govt. The power for all social issues belong at the state and local levels not the Federal Level. Too many people however look to a large central govt. to bail them out for poor personal choices. Our Founders understood that it is human nature to fail and one learns from failure. Liberals cannot accept that concept.
 
Jetboogieman said:
So you can't prove that Alaska isn't socialist, and that Sarah Palin continued this socialist...

So you'd ACTUALLY be electing a socialist if you elected her. Given her "track record" :2razz:

P.S. get a ****ing sense of humour, you're harshing my mellow :2razz:
Click to expand...

I would be voting for someone who believes in states rights as well as state responsibilities. That is what the U.S. Founders believed as well. If a state decides to be socialist and redistribute wealth then so be it. I prefer the people at the state level decide that not the Federal Govt.
 
Conservative said:
I would be voting for someone who believes in states rights as well as state responsibilities. That is what the U.S. Founders believed as well. If a state decides to be socialist and redistribute wealth then so be it. I prefer the people at the state level decide that not the Federal Govt.
Click to expand...

Hmmm I wonder where Texas is going to come up with the 12 billion in matching funds the Feds supply for medicaid.....
 
Conservative said:
I would be voting for someone who believes in states rights as well as state responsibilities. That is what the U.S. Founders believed as well. If a state decides to be socialist and redistribute wealth then so be it. I prefer the people at the state level decide that not the Federal Govt.
Click to expand...

I've seen you in other threads support Palin.

So by your logic that I've seen. That means you directly support Socialism.

Fantastic, I will note this in my log.

"DP log, Stardate 4013.93..."
 
Jetboogieman said:
I've seen you in other threads support Palin.

So by your logic that I've seen. That means you directly support Socialism.

Fantastic, I will note this in my log.

"DP log, Stardate 4013.93..."
Click to expand...

Normally if I don't like who is on the GOP ticket, I just don't vote. But if Palin is on the ticket, I will vote DEM...
 
Conservative said:
The basic principles in the Constitution are indeed written in stone, civic rights being an example along with the role of the Federal Govt. Our Founders knew that power corrupts and that is why they proposed a small Central Govt. and boy where they right. Our Federal Govt. is corrupt and as long as we the people allow that to happen the country is going to generate the results we have today, 14 trillion in debt and massive attempts at redistributing wealth. I prefer our Founder's way and putting personal responsibility back into our govt. The power for all social issues belong at the state and local levels not the Federal Level. Too many people however look to a large central govt. to bail them out for poor personal choices. Our Founders understood that it is human nature to fail and one learns from failure. Liberals cannot accept that concept.
Click to expand...
I agree that govt is too large, and too expensive. As for your last statement that I bolded, Conservatives can't RECOGNIZE their failures...:2razz:
 
winston53660 said:
Hmmm I wonder where Texas is going to come up with the 12 billion in matching funds the Feds supply for medicaid.....
Click to expand...

My belief is that TX will opt out of Medicaid as those "matching funds" come with too many strings.
 
UtahBill said:
I agree that govt is too large, and too expensive. As for your last statement that I bolded, Conservatives can't RECOGNIZE their failures...:2razz:
Click to expand...

We call those "conservatives" who cannot recognize their failures to be RINO's as we know there is no room in today's Democrat Party for Conservatives.
 
UtahBill said:
Normally if I don't like who is on the GOP ticket, I just don't vote. But if Palin is on the ticket, I will vote DEM...
Click to expand...

Really, Obama vs. Palin, you would vote Obama? interesting, How could Palin do worse than Obama?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom