• 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

Raise taxes some, across the board.
Eliminate deductions for charitable giving.
Minimize deductions, OK for mortgage interest on 1 house, first half million value.
Cut spending on non-essentials, eliminate all subsidies and let the chips fall where they may.
Give federal lands not actually being used as national parks, military uses, etc. to the states to use for their purposes that taxpayers have to cover now.
No more offshore ownership of corporations, no tax dodges.....corporate tax rate down, but with minimum alternative type tax to preclude what some are doing now, making billions and paying no taxes.
 
The Prof said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the Ryan Plan. It offers a substantive contribution to the budget debate.

The Senate will not be debating, offering amendments, working toward passage of a plan perhaps based on the Ryan plan. Senator Reid's express motive is to put Republicans on record. Senator McConnell's express motive is to put Democrats on record. Neither Senator is using the debate to actually adopt a piece of legislation. That's the tit-for-tat to which I was referring.
 
celticwar17 said:
That won't hurt the economy in a recession or anything :roll:
Click to expand...

You are correct that tax hikes would have a larger economic impact. From the IMF's October 2010 World Economic Outlook:

Fiscal contraction that relies on spending cuts tends to have smaller contractionary effects than tax-based adjustments. This is partly because central banks usually provide substantially more stimulus following a spending-based contraction than following a tax-based contraction. Monetary stimulus is particularly weak following indirect tax hikes (such as the value-added tax. VAT) that raise prices.

The two-year multiplier for tax-based consolidation was 1.3. Hence for every increase of 1% of GDP in taxes, GDP was 1.3% lower after two years than it would otherwise have been. For spending-related fiscal consolidation, the multiplier was 0.3. In addition, not surprising given the impact on output, for every 1% of GDP of tax-driven fiscal consolidation, the unemployment rate was raised 0.6 percentage points. For comparable spending-driven fiscal consolidation, the impact on the unemployment rate was 0.2 percentage points. Not surprisingly, the IMF has suggested that the bulk of fiscal consolidation should fall on the spending side (~ two-thirds).

For those who wondering why central banks offer a less accommodative policy following tax-driven fiscal consolidation, that stance has to do with their mandate to maintain price stability. To the extent that higher taxes lead to price increases, central banks typically seek to rein in that additional inflation. Given the abnormally low interest rates in the U.S., barring QE 3 (increasingly less likely given recent inflation issues that may or may not be transitory), the Fed likely won't increase its already historically accommodative policy in the face of fiscal consolidation (spending- and/or tax-driven). However, if inflation proves transitory, it could pursue a more gradual course of tightening than might otherwise have been the case. Of course, the Fed will need to be careful not to create an environment that is conducive to the development of new asset bubbles.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The Senate will not be debating, offering amendments, working toward passage of a plan perhaps based on the Ryan plan.
Click to expand...

and why is that?

Senator Reid's express motive is to put Republicans on record.
Click to expand...

hurryup harry is playing politics, plain and simple

Senator McConnell's express motive is to put Democrats on record.
Click to expand...

mcconnell is doing all in his power to move the senate towards A BUDGET

Neither Senator is using the debate to actually adopt a piece of legislation.
Click to expand...

the gop has already acted, hr1 and ryan both PASSED the house

where's the PLAN from the party in power?

leadership, anyone?
 
today:

A growing number of Democrats are threatening to defy the White House over the national debt, joining Republican calls for deficit cuts as a requirement for consenting to lift the country’s borrowing limit.

The tension is the latest illustration of how the tea-party-infused GOP is driving the debate in Washington over federal spending. And it shows how the debt issue is testing the Obama administration’s clout as Democrats, particularly those from politically competitive states, resist White House arguments against setting conditions on legislation to raise the debt ceiling.
Click to expand...

the dems NAMED by wapo include kent conrad, the BUDGET CHAIR who announced he won't be seeking reelection

joe manchin, the maverick mountain-stater who put a bullet thru cap and trade and excoriated the epa

mark pryor from arkansas, amy klobuchar from minnesota, mark udall from colorado...

i am personally aware of several others

no spin, lynn

responsibility, anyone?

leadership?
 
The Prof said:
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
Click to expand...

Good... Entitlements may not be productive, but they are more than necessary in a free, compassionate country. If Congress needs more money, they can raise the taxes on those who can best afford it, or get out of the desert...

ricksfolly
 
tell it to hurrup harry

seven hundred days and two since the united states senate produced an itemized budget

why?
 
ricksfolly said:
Good... Entitlements may not be productive, but they are more than necessary in a free, compassionate country. If Congress needs more money, they can raise the taxes on those who can best afford it, or get out of the desert...

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Talk about "taxing the rich" is an intellectually dishonest strawman. I would like to have everything on the table, icluding that.

These taxes that Obama and his minions keep talking about will reduce the deficit by about 5%. So we can fixate on that or look at the total problem.

What I find disturbing about this new democratic party that seems like a mindless cult, determinded to follow their leader in group think. Where is the outcry abut continuing a war in Afghanistan that costs us more money, $100 billion a year, not the to mention the loss of lives. Where is the outrage in an administration that allows for food and gas inflation that hurts the poorest among us.
 
washunut said:
Talk about "taxing the rich" is an intellectually dishonest strawman. I would like to have everything on the table, icluding that.

These taxes that Obama and his minions keep talking about will reduce the deficit by about 5%. So we can fixate on that or look at the total problem.

What I find disturbing about this new democratic party that seems like a mindless cult, determinded to follow their leader in group think. Where is the outcry abut continuing a war in Afghanistan that costs us more money, $100 billion a year, not the to mention the loss of lives. Where is the outrage in an administration that allows for food and gas inflation that hurts the poorest among us.
Click to expand...

If we combine it with the republican plan and we can get to 10%. Whoopie!


:coffeepap ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
If we combine it with the republican plan and we can get to 10%. Whoopie!


:coffeepap ;)
Click to expand...


So you really don't give a flying crap about hurting the poor as long as you can play class warfare....Real good Joe. Thanks for exposing yourself yet again.

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
If we combine it with the republican plan and we can get to 10%. Whoopie!


:coffeepap ;)
Click to expand...

Not sure what the relevance of your post is. I am not in favor of the republican plan, if you can find a post where I say that is the answer you can remind me of that.

What your response does, is prove jst how unserious people are when discussing this issue.
 
washunut said:
Not sure what the relevance of your post is. I am not in favor of the republican plan, if you can find a post where I say that is the answer you can remind me of that.

What your response does, is prove jst how unserious people are when discussing this issue.
Click to expand...



I added the smily so you would know I was poking fun at the 5%. I don't think either side is serious about reducing the deficit.
 
ryan's not serious---LOL!

turns medicare into a voucher, that's all

unbelievable lack of awarness, par for the course
 
The Prof said:
ryan's not serious---LOL!

turns medicare into a voucher, that's all

unbelievable lack of awarness, par for the course
Click to expand...

As it won't pass, he can say anything. It won't be law.
 
UtahBill said:
Raise taxes some, across the board.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Hauser's Law.

Eliminate deductions for charitable giving.
Click to expand...

And that will help make better our current situation? Yikes.

Minimize deductions, OK for mortgage interest on 1 house, first half million value.
Click to expand...

I'm all for simplifying the tax code, but it won't increase revenues.

Cut spending on non-essentials, eliminate all subsidies and let the chips fall where they may.
Click to expand...

Define non-essentials, that's the real problem.

Give federal lands not actually being used as national parks, military uses, etc. to the states to use for their purposes that taxpayers have to cover now.
Click to expand...

Just sell them all!

No more offshore ownership of corporations, no tax dodges.....corporate tax rate down, but with minimum alternative type tax to preclude what some are doing now, making billions and paying no taxes.
Click to expand...

We should have more of that. Cheaper goods for all! :)
 
Boo Radley said:
I added the smily so you would know I was poking fun at the 5%. I don't think either side is serious about reducing the deficit.
Click to expand...

Sorry I missed the picture. I agree that neither side is serious. What plays into this I think is that the voters from both parties are not yet taking this issue seriously.
 
washunut said:
Sorry I missed the picture. I agree that neither side is serious. What plays into this I think is that the voters from both parties are not yet taking this issue seriously.
Click to expand...

I agree. I still think most voters have a disconnect. They want programs, but don't see how they have to paid for.
 
Boo Radley said:
I agree. I still think most voters have a disconnect. They want programs, but don't see how they have to paid for.
Click to expand...

This is why democracy is doomed to failure.
 
Boo Radley said:
I agree. I still think most voters have a disconnect. They want programs, but don't see how they have to paid for.
Click to expand...

That is why I think there is no other solution for the country than devaluation of the dollar and inflation.

People think Bernanke is not in touch, but my sense is he has bought into this being the solution to the american debt problem.
 
washunut said:
That is why I think there is no other solution for the country than devaluation of the dollar and inflation.

People think Bernanke is not in touch, but my sense is he has bought into this being the solution to the american debt problem.
Click to expand...

It's a solution which would have intensely negative consequences. That would be a lot of inflation to introduce to this country. That alone would create another recession that would last at least a year or two, depending on how they responded to the situation.
 
phattonez said:
It's a solution which would have intensely negative consequences. That would be a lot of inflation to introduce to this country. That alone would create another recession that would last at least a year or two, depending on how they responded to the situation.
Click to expand...

That would be my concern. I would hope we could avoid that type of solution.
 
Boo Radley said:
That would be my concern. I would hope we could avoid that type of solution.
Click to expand...

How else do you draw back the phony money that has been created? And to think this is made worse by the fact that the policies of this administration resulted in largely little more than payoff to the unions for getting Obama elected.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
How else do you draw back the phony money that has been created? And to think this is made worse by the fact that the policies of this administration resulted in largely little more than payoff to the unions for getting Obama elected.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Nothing. It's been done. Just leave it alone as it is right now. The damage has been done. Taking money out of the economy is an evil just as putting it in is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom