• 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!

Americans Blame Wasteful Government Spending for Deficit

BTW, if GWB had been required to ask congress for higher taxes to fight OUR war in Iraq, we might have done things differently.

There, I fixed it for you.

Seems to me we were running $400 billion deficits during the Iraq War and not all of that was due to the war. In fact less than $150 billion a year on both wars. The fact that we had to reconstitute defense and intelligence after Clinton and Gingrich raped them for the "peace dividend" in the 90s is unrelated to the wars, but related to the threat of terror. So much for the "end of conflict between nations".
 
Typcially, budget extremists lump Social Security with Medicare and Medicaid when they rant against entitlements. We have to be clear, SS is funded by its own tax and is not a burden on the budget. Medicare and Medicaid are adversely affected by the folly of treating health care as an economic good. The laws of supply and demand are not applicable to health care and that's what's causing the problem with Medicare and Medicaid. Additionally, Medicaid suffers from the apathy State legislators have for the poor. For the most part, the poor don't vote so legislators don't care all that much what happens to them.

I hope you are not going to college in St. Louis. We just went through nearly two years where a congress dominated by democrats in both houses and the presidency created "historic" health care legislation. Why do you mention that social security is taxed and should be viewed seperately, but not medicare which is also taxed seperately?

Also your claim about apathy for medicade because it helps the poor, are you saying that NE legislators which are predominately democrats as well as in Calif care little about the poor?

In an earlier post you stated that taxes need to be increased. So what percentage of GDP should federal revenues be? It is running about 14-15%, the norm is about 18-19% and federal spending is currently about 24% of GDP.
 
Although in this case it is in reverse order. Regardless of the claim that there was a surplus during the Clinton years, and we must credit both Clinton and the Republican congress for that, it never took into account the unfunded liability projections which BLOW AWAY the current debt (like by 9 times!!!). The trend is clear, entitlement growth since 1950 is sucking budget and the percentage of GDP calculation allocated to federal government spending is steadily increasing.

IT DOES NOT MATTER IF WE RAISE TAXES TO COVER PART OF OUR GOVERNMENT SPENDING! TAX REVENUES WILL STAY BETWEEN 14% AND 20% AND WE STILL RUN A 40% DEFICIT.

WE MUST CUT SPENDING AND IT MUST BE MANDATORY SPENDING.

2010 federal revenue @ 14.7% of GDP = $2.16 trillion ($1.29 trillion)

2010 federal revenue @ 17% of GDP = $2.48 trillion ($0.976 trillion)

2010 federal revenue @ 20% of GDP = $2.92 trillion ($0.536 trillion)
 
Typcially, budget extremists lump Social Security with Medicare and Medicaid when they rant against entitlements. We have to be clear, SS is funded by its own tax and is not a burden on the budget. Medicare and Medicaid are adversely affected by the folly of treating health care as an economic good. The laws of supply and demand are not applicable to health care and that's what's causing the problem with Medicare and Medicaid. Additionally, Medicaid suffers from the apathy State legislators have for the poor. For the most part, the poor don't vote so legislators don't care all that much what happens to them.

****ing idiots tend to separate SS into a separate budget item, as if the growth in cost of SS were covered by a "small" tax increase of FICA and a small adjustment to eligibility. Plus, you are counting all those IOUs from the general fund as continuing to fund SS. It is an accounting trick and the reality is we need to look at total revenue and total spending, AND where the GROWTH in spending is and cut. Don't ever think for a moment that the IOUs from the general fund to SS do not represent the fact that SS costs more than FICA taxes are taking in.

We need to aggressively cut SS, Medicare and Medicaid.
 
There, I fixed it for you.

Seems to me we were running $400 billion deficits during the Iraq War and not all of that was due to the war. In fact less than $150 billion a year on both wars. The fact that we had to reconstitute defense and intelligence after Clinton and Gingrich raped them for the "peace dividend" in the 90s is unrelated to the wars, but related to the threat of terror. So much for the "end of conflict between nations".

Don't be fixing what isn't broke. The War on Terror is OUR war, the war on Iraq was Bush's war. OTOH, God told him to do it, so he doesn't have to take all the blame...
 
2010 federal revenue @ 14.7% of GDP = $2.16 trillion ($1.29 trillion)

2010 federal revenue @ 17% of GDP = $2.48 trillion ($0.976 trillion)

2010 federal revenue @ 20% of GDP = $2.92 trillion ($0.536 trillion)

So what? You want to raise taxes by 33% to still run a half trillion dollar deficit and somehow have an economic recovery? ****ing ****t.
 
Last edited:
Don't be fixing what isn't broke. The War on Terror is OUR war, the war on Iraq was Bush's war. OTOH, God told him to do it, so he doesn't have to take all the blame...

Bollocks, he led us there, but we own it. We re-elected him. It turned out pretty well, too. I am glad we did it. I mean, surely you don't think all of the current turmoil in the ME/NA is a result of Al Jazeera, do you?
 
Why do you mention that social security is taxed and should be viewed seperately, but not medicare which is also taxed seperately?

You're correct. Medicare is funded, in part, by a payroll tax. It's not enough, however, to cover the cost of health care provided to Medicare beneficiaries.

Also your claim about apathy for medicade because it helps the poor, are you saying that NE legislators which are predominately democrats as well as in Calif care little about the poor?

Even Democrats are politicians. While they're better than Republicans, they'll abandon their constituencies when they have to. Look what Clinton did with TANF and Obama did with the Bush tax cuts for the rich last December.

In an earlier post you stated that taxes need to be increased. So what percentage of GDP should federal revenues be? It is running about 14-15%, the norm is about 18-19% and federal spending is currently about 24% of GDP.

Revenue should match spending. Spending at 24% should be funded by tax revenue at 24%.
 
****ing idiots tend to separate SS into a separate budget item, as if the growth in cost of SS were covered by a "small" tax increase of FICA and a small adjustment to eligibility. Plus, you are counting all those IOUs from the general fund as continuing to fund SS. It is an accounting trick and the reality is we need to look at total revenue and total spending, AND where the GROWTH in spending is and cut. Don't ever think for a moment that the IOUs from the general fund to SS do not represent the fact that SS costs more than FICA taxes are taking in.

We need to aggressively cut SS, Medicare and Medicaid.

SS, Medicare and Medicaid are sacred. Any politician who tries to cut them should be treated as all traitors are treated.

IOUs are what guys give other guys when they can't cover their losses in basement poker games. The securities in the SS Trust Fund are not IOUs. They're US Treasury securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. They were purchased with funds collected from the American People and we expect to be repaid in full and with interest.
 
Bollocks, he led us there, but we own it. We re-elected him. It turned out pretty well, too. I am glad we did it. I mean, surely you don't think all of the current turmoil in the ME/NA is a result of Al Jazeera, do you?

there are several other countries on the other side of the world that are unstable and being led by a dirtbag,
when do you propose attacking them?
 
there are several other countries on the other side of the world that are unstable and being led by a dirtbag,
when do you propose attacking them?

I don't. None of them are strategically important.
 
SS, Medicare and Medicaid are sacred. Any politician who tries to cut them should be treated as all traitors are treated.

IOUs are what guys give other guys when they can't cover their losses in basement poker games. The securities in the SS Trust Fund are not IOUs. They're US Treasury securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. They were purchased with funds collected from the American People and we expect to be repaid in full and with interest.

US Securities are IOUs. If we can manage to keep our credit rating high, dollars will be cheaper.
 
I don't. None of them are strategically important.

The stability of the Middle East should be accomplished by the Middle East, not the USA or the UN.
Certainly the Suadis have the strength militarily, politically, and economically.
We really are not THAT dependent on ME oil...
 
Thanks for the links but I have to disagree.

i notice that you disagree; but don't address the actual issue which is that there simply isn't enough rich people to balance the budget on their backs

One of the links you provided included a link to Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options. Figure 1-2 in that document (page 19 of the .pdf) is quite enlightening. If we do nothing, over the next 10 years, current law will increase revenue significantly and somewhat decrease expenditures.

:lamo: somewhat decreases expenditures? "current law" includes the notion that we can lower Medicare reimbursement rates by 25% without seeing what the Medicare Actuaries tell us will be the widespread de facto destruction of the program. current law is a joke designed to give politicians sound bites - not a real budget.

The effect will be to return the deficit to just slightly above its average of the last 40 years as a percentage of GDP.

until the early 1920's, at which point Medicare and Social Security explode, meaning that those two programs with Medicaid will suck up every single tax dollar.

In fact, it is the revenue.

there is no possible way in which we produce over $100 Trillion in revenue above what we already are. The money just isn't there. There isn't enough money in the world to meet our unfunded liabilities. not only is it not the revenue, there is no chance that it could be the revenue.
 
The stability of the Middle East should be accomplished by the Middle East, not the USA

You say that like we do not have _significant_ economic, diplomatic, political, development, and geopolitical interests in the region. We have the leverage and capability to _help_ shape political and social stability by being true to our rhetorical and enunciated principles. Iraq was the geopolitical shift (earthquake) that has started the ripples like a tsunami. It just takes 30 years. 10 if reorientation and 20 to form stable consensual governments.

or the UN.

:lol:

Certainly the Suadis have the strength militarily, politically, and economically.

The Saudis will not be the ones who decree individual political and social and economic freedoms. Al Azhar is.

We really are not THAT dependent on ME oil...

:lol:
 
Revenue should match spending. Spending at 24% should be funded by tax revenue at 24%.

:lamo: and how do you plan on producing this; given that it has never been accomplished. :D even the 91% top marginal rates didn't get us above the historical average of about 18.5 - 19%


hausers-law.gif



:lol: taxing at 24% of GDP! okay, sure :)
 
SS, Medicare and Medicaid are sacred.

says what scripture?

Any politician who tries to cut them should be treated as all traitors are treated.

i must have missed the part when you called for President Obama to be put on trial for treason - perhaps you could point me to the link?

IOUs are what guys give other guys when they can't cover their losses in basement poker games. The securities in the SS Trust Fund are not IOUs

in fact, they are.

They're US Treasury securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

actually, no, they're not like US Treasury's - the bonds we buy.

They were purchased with funds collected from the American People and we expect to be repaid in full and with interest.

:lamo given that that's going to take $17 Trillion that we the people don't have - we have negative $14 trillion instead - good luck with that :lol:
 
i notice that you disagree; but don't address the actual issue which is that there simply isn't enough rich people to balance the budget on their backs

I addressed the links you provided. They are mostly unsupported assertions by guys with opinions. Let's see some numbers.


somewhat decreases expenditures? "current law" includes the notion that we can lower Medicare reimbursement rates by 25% without seeing what the Medicare Actuaries tell us will be the widespread de facto destruction of the program. current law is a joke designed to give politicians sound bites - not a real budget.

Current law is the basis for Conservative demagoguery. Unfortunately, examination of the details invalidates your contentions. Got anything else?


until the early 1920's, at which point Medicare and Social Security explode, meaning that those two programs with Medicaid will suck up every single tax dollar.

SS is OK until around 2037. After that, we could have some trouble. The good news is, we avert the trouble with a small payroll tax increase now. No problem.

Medicare is a thornier problem but one which will respond well to getting healthcare costs under control. I'd recommend universal, single-payer.

there is no possible way in which we produce over $100 Trillion in revenue above what we already are. The money just isn't there. There isn't enough money in the world to meet our unfunded liabilities. not only is it not the revenue, there is no chance that it could be the revenue.

"Unfunded liabilities" is a scare tactic. The cost of supporting the aged is going to be with us regardless of who bears it. It will either come from private resources or public resources. In either case, we will have to find the money somewhere and it will affect the economy. Better to find the most efficient way to deal with it.
 
I addressed the links you provided. They are mostly unsupported assertions by guys with opinions. Let's see some numbers.




Current law is the basis for Conservative demagoguery. Unfortunately, examination of the details invalidates your contentions. Got anything else?




SS is OK until around 2037. After that, we could have some trouble. The good news is, we avert the trouble with a small payroll tax increase now. No problem.

Medicare is a thornier problem but one which will respond well to getting healthcare costs under control. I'd recommend universal, single-payer.



"Unfunded liabilities" is a scare tactic. The cost of supporting the aged is going to be with us regardless of who bears it. It will either come from private resources or public resources. In either case, we will have to find the money somewhere and it will affect the economy. Better to find the most efficient way to deal with it.

I think you should pay for the SS tax increase yourself, since you thinks that's necessary.
 
just raise the payroll tax...

no problem?

wow

then why won't barack the slasher go there?

why is it TWO YEARS since the united states senate produced a budget?

anyway, the FIX required for social security is gonna require ALL FOUR hits

Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Simpson And Bowles Release Eye-Popping Recommendations | TPMDC

social security is not "ok" until 2037

My Way News - Social Security now seen to run permanent deficits

social programs like ss and medicare which can't keep their fundamental promises are failures
 
:lamo: and how do you plan on producing this; given that it has never been accomplished. :D even the 91% top marginal rates didn't get us above the historical average of about 18.5 - 19%


hausers-law.gif



:lol: taxing at 24% of GDP! okay, sure :)

You should check the average tax rates for OECD countries. The US is near the bottom and some countries in Western Europe are above 30%. If they can do it, we can too.
 
vote obama, 2012!

if they can tax we can too!
 
Back
Top Bottom