• 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

TurtleDude said:
why should the rich pay more when they already pay too much
Click to expand...

Coming from someone who is a self-proclaimed rich guy.

But I do agree, hell I work for 7 millionaires. They gave me a job!
 
cpwill said:
the woman said congress can regulate mental activity. that she also made other claims is good if you want context, but doesn't discount the fact that that is what she claims.

still waiting on a defense of that.


but aware that you are unable to provide it, and are desperately now clinging to the notion that you can avoid it and it will go away.

which is fine - you and me don't really matter at this point on this debate - but the Supreme Court does and that argument being included in the briefs for the mandate is going to significantly harm it.
Click to expand...

It puts it in context. Explains what she means. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. It's the trouble you have with breaking things up too much. You miss meaning by playing disngenuous games, much like NRO. you cannot argue a complete falsehood, a made up context that doesn't really exist. That's what you're trying to do. It won't work.
 
Boo Radley said:
It puts it in context. Explains what she means. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. It's the trouble you have with breaking things up too much. You miss meaning by playing disngenuous games, much like NRO. you cannot argue a complete falsehood, a made up context that doesn't really exist. That's what you're trying to do. It won't work.
Click to expand...

Oh please....the 'out of context' gambit? Really? haven't we debunked this myth that libs like you only pull out when caught red handed Joe....


j-mac
 
Erod said:
Geez, where did you learn this?

Welfare and entitlements were never part of the plan. Those were liberal creations from thin air.
Click to expand...

and for no good reason, right?
 
Erod said:
BS. Have you ever gotten a job from a poor man? You put the pinch on the rich, and they'll just compensate by cutting staff.

Economics 101.
Click to expand...
The essentials we buy are only part of our economy, if the poor can barely afford essentials, the rich man selling non-essentials has no customers.
 
whysoserious said:
What does that have to do with anything?? You mean when they took over and the Bush tax cuts still were not in effect? Keep up with the conversation, please. Who is in power does not have anything to do with the discussion.
Click to expand...

well, it does give us someone to blame....simple thinking but it is what it is....
 
UtahBill said:
and for no good reason, right?
Click to expand...

Ah, so government enacted unconstitutional programs for our own good eh....Well, how very American of them.

The essentials we buy are only part of our economy, if the poor can barely afford essentials, the rich man selling non-essentials has no customers.
Click to expand...

And if the cost of those essentials keep rising as a result of increased taxation on the wealthy man that passes along the cost to keep his business afloat, then in the end who is really the recipient of the tax?


well, it does give us someone to blame....simple thinking but it is what it is....
Click to expand...


Translation: "All conservatives, and people that don't agree with me are stupid."

That is wonderful example of "Moderate" thinking Bill. :roll:

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Oh please....the 'out of context' gambit? Really? haven't we debunked this myth that libs like you only pull out when caught red handed Joe....


j-mac
Click to expand...

J, context always matters. Because some don't understand that, they make serious mistakes in their reasoning. These mistakes have a serious effect on the way we discuss issues in this country, and it hurts us all. reading is about more than calling out words, it is about comprhension, understanding.
 
Aside from the issue that the public seems unable or unwilling to understand the various factors that are driving the nation's long-term fiscal imbalances and the measures that will be needed (spending and revenue) to address those imbalances, some political leaders also appear unfamiliar with the issues.

Yesterday, The St. Augustine Record reported:

He said the government needs to borrow more money to pay the interest on what it has already borrowed.

"That's like getting a second credit card to pay the interest on the first," he said.
Click to expand...

Rubio: Raising debt limit would be 'catastrophic' | StAugustine.com

That is not correct. U.S. revenue is sufficient to meet the nation's debt service costs. Were that assessment correct, the nation would be in Hyman Minsky's dreaded "Ponzi" situation. A debt crisis would have erupted well before that situation came to pass (and, depending on when the crisis erupted, interest rates could spike to the point where the nation wound up in such a situation), as creditors and would-be lenders would have calculated that the nation was approaching a situation that would entail severe risk of default.

The U.S. is not in any such position. In fact, over the past 10 years, net interest payments have averaged just under 10% of tax revenue (assisted by recent abnormally low interest rates). Even if one takes the OMB's projections to 2016, net interest payments would amount to 14.7% of tax revenue (18.6% of revenue if one assumed interest rates at the 1940-2010 average). Hence, it is incorrect for Senator Rubio to argue that the U.S. needs a second credit card to pay the interest on its first credit card.

Instead, the U.S. is in a situation where its tax revenue is not sufficient to meet all of its expenditures, hence the annual budget deficits. That's quite different from suggesting that it lacks the tax revenue to meet its debt service obligations. Substantial as the deficits are (>10% of GDP), the situation is nowhere near as dire as it would be if the majority of tax revenue was consumed by debt service costs. With credible fiscal consolidation, the U.S. need not approach that untenable situation.
 
j-mac said:
Ah, so government enacted unconstitutional programs for our own good eh....Well, how very American of them.
And if the cost of those essentials keep rising as a result of increased taxation on the wealthy man that passes along the cost to keep his business afloat, then in the end who is really the recipient of the tax?
Translation: "All conservatives, and people that don't agree with me are stupid."
That is wonderful example of "Moderate" thinking Bill. :roll:
j-mac
Click to expand...
Remember reading about the dust bowl, the great depression, the great wall street crash(es)? What would you have done to help the common citizen in those situations? Granted we have overdone it when it comes to helping the public survive disaster, typical of govt reaction. THey create billion dollar programs to solve million dollar problems. And who benefits the most from these programs? Opportunists who see a way to get another govt teat in their mouth, at taxpayer expense. If govt stopped buying crap that we don't need from businesses created for unnecessary programs, a lot of republican owned businesses would dry up and blow away....
As for your translation, you got it wrong, my remark was aimed at both parties. If all you have is name calling, take a break....
 
Joe Steel said:
Nonsense.

You're representing extremist economic theory as fact. Public spending has never been proven to affect private spending.
Click to expand...

You've got to be joking. When part of your income is taken away from you, of course private spending is affected.
 
Boo Radley said:
It puts it in context. Explains what she means.
Click to expand...

it explains why she thinks healthcare is somehow "different". the logic there too is foppery - you can make the same argument about food and housing. but that's the "pragmatic" portion of the argument

and then she went on to deal with the "yes but it's unconstitutional" portion of the argument by saying it was okay because Congress had the right to regulate mental activity. I quoted for you the relevant portion of the ruling where she explicitly utilizes that exact logic.

your inability to answer it remains telling.
 
UtahBill said:
we might pay more for our groceries, but that could be a good thing....we might eat less, and we are a nation of fat people...
Click to expand...

yes, but our poor are fatt-er, and it's not a little because the least expensive foods are also the worst for you.
 
TurtleDude said:
He was right next to that deluded black woman who said now that Obama was president she no longer had to worry about paying for gasoline or her mortgage
Click to expand...

Just had to be a BLACK woman now didn't it?
 
yes, but our poor are fatt-er, and it's not a little because the least expensive foods are also the worst for you.
Click to expand...

That food is not really "least expensive".

It is, actually, "heavily subsidized and under-regulated". The beef and corn (starch, syrup, etc) suck tax dollars and poison both the people and the land. All told, a burger, fries and soda might be the most expensive meal around.


.02
 
Last edited:
iamitter said:
You've got to be joking. When part of your income is taken away from you, of course private spending is affected.
Click to expand...

Not 100% true.

It has an impact on lower and middle classes; it has basically no impact on the highest income brackets.

Compare a hedge fund manager who makes $1 Billion a year to 20,000 families who make $50,000 a year.

Is the hedge fund manager going to buy 20,000 homes? 20,000 people's worth of clothing and food? No.

You can change his tax rate from the current 17% (because it's capital gains, not income) to the 28% that the average families make and he's going to spend basically the exact same amount he was going to spend anyway.

However, if you dropped the tax rate on the 20,000 families making $50,000 a year from 28% to 17% - you WOULD see a stimulative effect on the economy.

This is why the Bush tax cuts did little to grow the economy. They were mis-targeted.

Seriously - if you walked up to me and gave me $20,000, I guarantee you it would be spent (most of it anyway). If you walked up to Nicole Kidman and gave her $20,000 you've done nothing to alter her lifestyle in the least. She might spend it, but it just means that another $20,000 will sit in her account unspent - thus creating no stimulative effect.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Not 100% true.

It has an impact on lower and middle classes; it has basically no impact on the highest income brackets.

Compare a hedge fund manager who makes $1 Billion a year to 20,000 families who make $50,000 a year.

Is the hedge fund manager going to buy 20,000 homes? 20,000 people's worth of clothing and food? No.

You can change his tax rate from the current 17% (because it's capital gains, not income) to the 28% that the average families make and he's going to spend basically the exact same amount he was going to spend anyway.

However, if you dropped the tax rate on the 20,000 families making $50,000 a year from 28% to 17% - you WOULD see a stimulative effect on the economy.

This is why the Bush tax cuts did little to grow the economy. They were mis-targeted.

Seriously - if you walked up to me and gave me $20,000, I guarantee you it would be spent (most of it anyway). If you walked up to Nicole Kidman and gave her $20,000 you've done nothing to alter her lifestyle in the least. She might spend it, but it just means that another $20,000 will sit in her account unspent - thus creating no stimulative effect.
Click to expand...

People mistake where brackets actually are, though. Top 10% in the US starts at 80k. There's a handful of people who it won't affect.

In any case, people with tons of money do not just leave that money lying around. It is invested and enters the economy in other ways. Consumption is not the only factor in our economy.
 
cpwill said:
it explains why she thinks healthcare is somehow "different". the logic there too is foppery - you can make the same argument about food and housing. but that's the "pragmatic" portion of the argument

and then she went on to deal with the "yes but it's unconstitutional" portion of the argument by saying it was okay because Congress had the right to regulate mental activity. I quoted for you the relevant portion of the ruling where she explicitly utilizes that exact logic.

your inability to answer it remains telling.
Click to expand...

It is different. You can choose not to own a car, for example. You cannot choose not to receive health care, especially in an emergency.

And CP, you not acknowledging the answer is not equal to you not being answered. That silly tactic wears thin as well.
 
haymarket said:
There are but two sides to the ledger and both must be dealt with. We do need more revenue. We do need spending cuts.
Click to expand...

Typical right wing plot. Spending cuts mean cutting more jobs, less buying all around, more foreclosures... Exactly what the Reps need to kill the economy, and discredit Obama.

Most people can't relate with money in the billions, but they can relate with how many jobs it will it cost.

ricksfolly
 
pretty big doings the last 2 days

Mitch McConnell: Vote on Obama budget - Meredith Shiner - POLITICO.com

yesterday: harry announces he'll put ryan on his floor, make republicans vote for it

today: mcconnell will force a vote on OBAMA'S BUDGET, published in february

y'know, the one that increases borrowing 20% to 1.65T while simultaneously punting, characteristically, on entitlements

the one the slasher TOOK BACK a couple days after ryan put out his plan

jon summers, reid spokesman: mcconnell's pulling "a stunt"

cuz "the president has already revised his budget proposal"

oh

it's been SEVEN HUNDRED DAYS since the united states senate has WRITTEN DOWN a budget

at a time in our history when bold action is most required

ie, IN TIMES LIKE THESE

where do you go to get back your self respect?

leadership, anyone?
 
Boo Radley said:
It is different. You can choose not to own a car, for example. You cannot choose not to receive health care, especially in an emergency.

And CP, you not acknowledging the answer is not equal to you not being answered. That silly tactic wears thin as well.
Click to expand...

as does your dancing around the issue.

but perhaps you could answer the question simply: Does the Congress have the right to regulate mental activity? Irrespective of this ruling, Obamacare, or any other issue - does Congress have the right to regulate our mental activity?
 
Joe Steel said:
We don't have a spending problem.
Click to expand...

facepalm.png
 
The Prof said:
pretty big doings the last 2 days

Mitch McConnell: Vote on Obama budget - Meredith Shiner - POLITICO.com

yesterday: harry announces he'll put ryan on his floor, make republicans vote for it

today: mcconnell will force a vote on OBAMA'S BUDGET, published in february
Click to expand...

IMO, this political tit-for-tat is to be expected given the looming 2012 campaign. Unfortunately, even as they are to be expected, these tactics suggest that the nation's political leaders continue to have difficulty prioritizing their work. IMO, the single highest priority in the weeks ahead after Congress returns on Monday should be to develop an acceptable framework for raising the debt ceiling and setting forth a credible fiscal consolidation path on a timely basis.

Instead, hours of debate will be wasted on needless political theater. Such theater, even as it will almost surely invoke deficits and debt, has little to do with the larger and more urgent priorities that should be the immediate focus of the Senate's attention. It will accomplish nothing in the pursuit of fiscal consolidation. It will consume time that could have been devoted to develoing a credible fiscal consolidation strategy.
 
hr1 is not a tit, it's a budget

ryan's plan is not a tat, it's hard numbers

barack the slasher's "solution," in contrast, is just another great speech, an excellent speech

it is what it is

leadership, anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom