• 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!

Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

I keep hearing the same stupid arguments.

Oh the goburmint spends to much! The solution is to cut the spending!

Oh the problem is the goburmint doesn't take in enough revenue! The solution is to raise taxes!

How long is it going to take people to figure out that you are going to have to do a little of both? Draconian spending cuts to shrink the federal government would hurt our economy! Drastic tax hikes would hinder our economy! You need to do a moderate amount of both instead of trying to make a class warfare out of it. And yeah, both sides are playing class warfare even though they are each claiming that it is the other side doing it. Smart reforms to the tax code, the entitlement programs, defense spending, and moderate tax increases over time to generate more revenue without stifling economic growth are the intelligent and rational way of handling the current economic situation. Not going on an idealistic quest to break the government or stick it to the wealthy.
 
Oh, cool, a fake poll.

Or, Americans are even dumber than rocks.

Could be both.
 
"Cut spending" is an absolute statement with no regard for efficiency or effectiveness.

on march 1, no less than the gao reported it had found a full half trillion dollars of federal misplacement of taxpayer trust

GAO Finds Massive Waste, Duplication - FoxBusiness.com

"most came in fiscal years 2009 to 2010 and going forward"

"just five of 47 job training and employment programs had been evaluated for efficiencies, little is known about the effectiveness of most programs"

efficiency and effectiveness, anyone?

NO MORE MONEY FOR MANAGERS SO MOROSE
 
Breaking News...

America wants "spending cuts" but doesn't want anything specific cut, especially anything that directly benefits them, and are all for someone ELSE being taxed more money.

Specific cuts from federal budget:

Big Ticket Items:
Education
Welfare (Hint to liberals: if there's no adjective, don't whine about whatever sub-set is goosing you)
Healthcare
Social Security

Reassess military missions and related expenses.

That'll get most of the federal government inside the Constitution again.

Little trashy items:
NPR/PBS
National Endowments for Art and Humanities
A bazillion pork barrel programs.
 
In America, elected officials may ignore the wishes and interests of the People with impunity.

tell it to the 66 democrat congressmen and women who were thrown out of office on tsunami tuesday, they surely don't forget so fast

the six in new york, the five each in ohio and pennsylvania, the four in florida, the three in virginia...

tell it to the 693 state reps ousted just last season, most in us history

tell it to the 10 gubs, tell it to russ feingold

tell it to claire mccaskill, joe manchin, ben nelson, bill nelson, john tester, kent conrad, jim webb, jeff bingaman...

seeya at the polls, progressives

tell the slasher to bring his plan
 
Americans have gotten used to a lot of little payoffs. It's going to (and should) hurt all of us, moving forward. The first entitlement that ought to be whacked is government subsidies for business. Such payoffs are anti-free market, anti-capitalism, and anti-democracy.

From the CATO institute:

The following are some corporate welfare programs that are long overdue
for repeal. Where provided, spending totals are for fiscal year 2008.
● Agriculture Department: Market Access Program. This program hands out more than $200 million annually to exporters of agricultural products to pay for their overseas advertising. Some of the recipients include the Brewers Association, the Pet Food Institute, Sunkist Growers, Welch’s Food, and the Wine Institute.
● Commerce Department: Advanced Technology Program. This $198 million program gives research grants to high-tech companies.
● Foreign Military Financing. U.S. taxpayers fund weapons purchases by foreign governments through this $4.7 billion program.
● Amtrak. The federal passenger rail company receives about $1.4 billion in subsidies annually. But Amtrak would be better off privatized so it could cut inefficient routes, maximize profits, and
innovate.
● Export-Import Bank. This agency uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize the financing of foreign purchases of U.S. goods. It makes billions of dollars of preferential loans to foreigners, guarantees the loans of private institutions, and provides export credit insurance. In 2007, a Dallas television station (WFAA) discovered that the agency provided $243 million in loans to bogus Mexican companies, including drug cartels.
● Maritime Administration. This $591 million agency provides subsidies to the commercial shipping and shipbuilding industries. For example, the agency provides loan guarantees for purchases of ships
from U.S. shipyards. But the best way to ensure a vigorous U.S.-owned ship industry is to reduce domestic taxes and regulations, which have encouraged the industry to move offshore.
● Energy Department: Energy Supply Research. This $894 million program aims to develop new and improved energy technologies. But the energy industry itself should fund such work, since it will
earn profits when breakthroughs are made.
● Small Business Administration. This $530 million agency provides subsidized loans and loan guarantees to small businesses. It has a poor record of selecting businesses to support, as its loans have high rates of delinquency.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-26.pdf
 
Last edited:
any reasonable solution must include tax increases.

fine, tell harry to write it up

tell him to hurry

service on the debt, mere interest alone, is racing towards a full trillion per year

News Headlines

every two weeks that go by costs us on the order of another 100 bil

leadership, anyone?
 
CriticalThought said:
Draconian spending cuts to shrink the federal government would hurt our economy!


I really hate the use of the term draconian when talking about government spending less money

The original term was based on heavy punishments levied for minor offenses.

The government spending can‘t be perceived as in individual punishment in the same manner that a tax levied against an individual is

So draconian taxation is true to the origin of the term, but draconian spending fails.
 
McINTYRE: Farming corporate welfare

Why would you tax the citizens just to give the money to a producer to lower the price of a product in the grocery store? Why not just let the product cost what it costs and let the citizen keep their money and buy the product if they want it? It doesn't matter if it's wheat producers or corn producers.

Where does ethanol fit into the mix? We subsidize corn producers. That raises the price of corn to produce a product (taking a lot of energy to do so) that isn't as efficient as the product it's replacing. Who, exactly, penciled that one out? Look at who is making the money. Is it the corn producers or the politicians or both?

The last election cycle saw two Tea Party darlings, Bachmann-MN and our very own Noem who had farm subsidies attached to their financial disclosures. They did nothing wrong or illegal. They just "farmed the programs."

The rest of us don't get the break. Farmers get breaks on gasoline taxes for machinery. What about your car? You need it to get to work. It's necessary for your job just as much as a farmer's tractor plowing the field is.

It's no longer whose ox will be gored but who you are going to pry off of the government dole.

Farm subsidies would be another good place to start chopping, vigorously, with a budget axe.
 
I really hate the use of the term draconian when talking about government spending less money

The original term was based on heavy punishments levied for minor offenses.

The government spending can‘t be perceived as in individual punishment in the same manner that a tax levied against an individual is

So draconian taxation is true to the origin of the term, but draconian spending fails.

Semantics aside, the point stands. Moderate cuts to spending and increases in taxes are necessary. Sharp cuts to spending would do more harm than good at this point. If the right wing wants to bring down the size of government then it needs to be done over time, not suddenly and in such a manner that it will lead to tumult in our economy.
 
McINTYRE: Farming corporate welfare

Farm subsidies would be another good place to start chopping, vigorously, with a budget axe.

Agree here. The one part of your comment I don't agree with is the notion that a farmer can't get gas breaks on the gasoline for his machinery. I do think that should, under our current tax code at least, be an expense that could be written off. The Car analogy by the individual is a very poor one. The farmer doesn't use the tractor to transport himself to work...he uses it to DO his work. Its similar to how you CAN claim your car or gas if driving is part of the actual job. Though I don't think that farmers should get some extra special benefit beyond that, such as making it tax exempt at the time of purchase or something of the sort. Though to be honest I may be misunderstanding what your writer was saying there.
 
As I said, no simple solution exists but any reasonable solution must include tax increases.

yes, of course. Its certainly necessary to start increasing the amount of taxes paid by the lower income groups. Since they benefit the most from all the spending, it's only right they start paying their fair share of the burden.
 
Agree here. The one part of your comment I don't agree with is the notion that a farmer can't get gas breaks on the gasoline for his machinery. I do think that should, under our current tax code at least, be an expense that could be written off.

All the dumb-ass farmer has to do is incorporate and thus separate his business expenses from his personal expenses.
 
Agree here. The one part of your comment I don't agree with is the notion that a farmer can't get gas breaks on the gasoline for his machinery. I do think that should, under our current tax code at least, be an expense that could be written off. The Car analogy by the individual is a very poor one. The farmer doesn't use the tractor to transport himself to work...he uses it to DO his work. Its similar to how you CAN claim your car or gas if driving is part of the actual job. Though I don't think that farmers should get some extra special benefit beyond that, such as making it tax exempt at the time of purchase or something of the sort. Though to be honest I may be misunderstanding what your writer was saying there.

The reason farm fuel is not taxed (subsidized) is that the fuel taxes are supposed to pay for road work. Since tractors and other farm equipment don't normally travel on public roads, they shouldn't have to pay the road tax. The farmers I know that have untaxed fuel are very careful that none of it is used for vehicles that travel public roads, although I'm sure there are some that ignore the law.
 
I really hate the use of the term draconian when talking about government spending less money

The original term was based on heavy punishments levied for minor offenses.

The government spending can‘t be perceived as in individual punishment in the same manner that a tax levied against an individual is

So draconian taxation is true to the origin of the term, but draconian spending fails.

To be specific, the original meaning was linked to Vlad Tepis, ie, Dracula, and his penchant for impaling just about anyone that irritated him.
 
All the dumb-ass farmer has to do is incorporate and thus separate his business expenses from his personal expenses.

The next time you sit down to eat, you can thank the "dumb-ass farmer" for providing the food you are eating. And all the farmers I know are incorporated. They are not as dumb as you seem to think.
 
Thanks Gill,

I still see no real point to it in our current economic environment and think it should be cut. What's so special about farmers compared to say, my friend who owns a four wheeler that isn't street legal so only drives on the road as well. Or how about everyone owning a boat or sea doo which aren't going on the road? What about my lawn mower, that's not for road use.
 
Thanks Gill,

I still see no real point to it in our current economic environment and think it should be cut. What's so special about farmers compared to say, my friend who owns a four wheeler that isn't street legal so only drives on the road as well. Or how about everyone owning a boat or sea doo which aren't going on the road? What about my lawn mower, that's not for road use.

Hey, I don't disagree with you at all. In my opinion, all farm subsidies should be stopped. Many seem to go to rich celebrities, sports stars, and musicians that have "farms" they use as tax deductions.
 
The reason farm fuel is not taxed (subsidized) is that the fuel taxes are supposed to pay for road work. Since tractors and other farm equipment don't normally travel on public roads, they shouldn't have to pay the road tax. The farmers I know that have untaxed fuel are very careful that none of it is used for vehicles that travel public roads, although I'm sure there are some that ignore the law.

Red dye is used for off road fuels and I believe blue dye is used for government vehicles.

Some may ignore, but the fines are pretty steep, if caught.
 
Thanks Gill,

I still see no real point to it in our current economic environment and think it should be cut. What's so special about farmers compared to say, my friend who owns a four wheeler that isn't street legal so only drives on the road as well. Or how about everyone owning a boat or sea doo which aren't going on the road? What about my lawn mower, that's not for road use.

I don't know. Here's the IRS code.

Off-highway business use includes fuels used in any of the following ways.

In stationary machines such as generators, compressors, power saws, and similar equipment.

For cleaning purposes.

In forklift trucks, bulldozers, and earthmovers.

Generally, this use does not include nonbusiness use of fuel, such as use by minibikes, snowmobiles, power lawn mowers, chain saws, and other yard equipment.

Example.

Caroline owns a landscaping business. She uses power lawn mowers and chain saws in her business. The gasoline used in the power lawn mowers and chain saws qualifies as fuel used in an off-highway business use. The gasoline used in her personal lawn mower at home does not qualify.

Publication 510 (04/2009), Excise Taxes
 
Back
Top Bottom