• 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: 71% shun GOP handling of debt crisis

Am hearing this claim a lot. Can you cite (or point to) some details of exactly what Obama has proposed in the way of cuts to "Medicare and other social programs"?

Here are the highlights of Obama's Deficit Reduction Plan:


The policy highlights in the President’s framework build on the down-payment included in his FY 2012 Budget. They include:

* Non-security discretionary spending: The President is proposing to build on the savings from the FY 2011 budget agreement, while investing in key drivers of economic growth like energy innovation, education, and infrastructure. This would entail cutting non-security discretionary spending to levels consistent with the Fiscal Commission, saving $770 billion by 2023.
* Security spending: The President’s framework will go beyond the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget to achieve deeper reductions in security spending. It sets a goal of holding the growth in base security spending below inflation, while ensuring our capacity to meet our national security responsibilities, which would save $400 billion by 2023.
* Health care: The President’s framework builds on the Affordable Care Act by including new reforms aimed at further reducing the growth of health care spending – a major driver of long-term deficits. The President opposes any plan that would simply shift costs to seniors and the vulnerable by undermining Medicare and Medicaid. Building on the foundation of the historic deficit reduction achieved through the Affordable Care Act, the framework would save an additional $340 billion by 2021, $480 billion by 2023, and at least an additional $1 trillion in the subsequent decade. These savings complement the new patient safety initiative that could lower Medicare costs by another $50 billion over the next decade by providing better care. The President’s framework includes initiatives that will:
* Bend the long-term cost curve by setting a more ambitious target of holding Medicare cost growth per beneficiary to GDP per capita plus 0.5 percent beginning in 2018, through strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).
* Make Medicaid more flexible, efficient and accountable without resorting to block granting the program, ending our partnership with States or reducing health care coverage for seniors in nursing homes, the most economically vulnerable and people with disabilities. Combined Medicaid savings of at least $100 billion over 10 years.
* Reduce Medicare’s excessive spending on prescription drugs and lower drug premiums for beneficiaries without shifting costs to seniors or privatizing Medicare. Combined Medicare savings of at least $200 billion over 10 years.
* Other mandatory spending: Outside of health care, comprehensive deficit reduction must include savings in other mandatory programs, including agricultural subsidies, the federal pension insurance system, and anti-fraud measures, while protecting and strengthening programs that serve low-income families and other vulnerable Americans. The President’s framework includes a target of $360 billion in savings from other mandatory programs by 2023.
* Tax reform: the President is calling for individual tax reform that closes loopholes and produces a system which is simpler, fairer and not rigged in favor of those who can afford lawyers and accountants to game it. The President supports the Fiscal Commission’s goal of reducing tax expenditures enough to both lower rates and lower the deficit.
* Social Security: The President does not believe that Social Security is in crisis nor is a driver of our near-term deficit problems. But, in the context of an aging population and a Social Security wage base that is declining as a share of overall earnings, Social Security faces long-term challenges that are better addressed sooner than later to ensure that the program remains for future generations the rock-solid benefit for older Americans that it has been for past generations. That is why the President supports bipartisan efforts to strengthen Social Security for the long haul. These efforts should be guided by several principles, including strengthening the program and not privatizing it, improving retirement security for the vulnerable while protecting people with disabilities and current beneficiaries, and not slashing benefits for future generations."

See further details at website:
FACT SHEET: The President's Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility | The White House
 
The problem is the teaparty thats running the GOP right now arent negotiating a deal...they are demanding what they want and refuse to negotiate on anything other than precisely what they want....thats not putting forth a deal...that is merely making demands.....the teaparty is clearly the problem with these debt negotiations..
 
Who says thaty don't?
Once more in English?
Guess you didn't do your homework, in 2008, they ran Roger Calegro for President. How come the Tea Party won't do that?
You asked for an example of a Democrat who's a socialist who ran as a Democrat. That you don't address your own question means again... you don't want to answer. More dishonesty? I'm surprised [/sarc]

What they are not ... are members of the Socialist Party.
They were according to the DSA - that's the Democratic Socialists of America website... :shrug: More denial. Again... color me surprised[/sarc]

The Socialist Party runs candidates from their party. The Tea Party runs candidates as Republicans.
The Tea Party isn't a political party... did you miss that the first two times when I first stated it, then proved it? Oh that's right, a Florida Democrat registered the Tea Party as a 3rd party and therefore, that makes it applicable everywhere. :lamo

Fair enough, he is now a registered Tea Partier and I apologize for getting that wrong.
Well, it just shows that you didn't do your homework...

I read he was a registered Republican, but according to the link you posted, he was until he switched in 2005 to the Democrat Party because he was unhappy with the war in Iraq; before switching to the Tea Party in 2009. Still, wrong is wrong and I was wrong to say he "is" a Registered Republican.
It just goes to show you can't believe everything that you read and you need to "trust but verify".

And let's get back to the point of all this... you asked, basically, why doesn't the Tea Party have the balls to run as a Tea Party. You implied that they have to disguise themselves as Republicans. You answered your own question and didn't even know it. Since you pointed out the Tea Party in Florida registered as a 3rd party - they ARE running as a 3rd party to Republicans in Florida.

Florida Tea Party

So locally it's happening in Florida.
 
That's a dodge.
If the debt was as bad as the conservatives say it is, why oh why, are countries willing to buy it? If you had too much debt, you couldn't get a loan with an interest rate even close to the current ones.

I have nothing to dodge... the buck stops with Obama just as it stops with every other President. What's a dodge is you making some Obama exception by continuing to make excuses. That's called BS spin, especially when the Progressive faithful make every excuse in the book so Mr. Obama doesn't look bad.
 
Here are the highlights of Obama's Deficit Reduction Plan:


The policy highlights in the President’s framework build on the down-payment included in his FY 2012 Budget. They include:

* Non-security discretionary spending: The President is proposing to build on the savings from the FY 2011 budget agreement, while investing in key drivers of economic growth like energy innovation, education, and infrastructure. This would entail cutting non-security discretionary spending to levels consistent with the Fiscal Commission, saving $770 billion by 2023.
* Security spending: The President’s framework will go beyond the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget to achieve deeper reductions in security spending. It sets a goal of holding the growth in base security spending below inflation, while ensuring our capacity to meet our national security responsibilities, which would save $400 billion by 2023.
* Health care: The President’s framework builds on the Affordable Care Act by including new reforms aimed at further reducing the growth of health care spending – a major driver of long-term deficits. The President opposes any plan that would simply shift costs to seniors and the vulnerable by undermining Medicare and Medicaid. Building on the foundation of the historic deficit reduction achieved through the Affordable Care Act, the framework would save an additional $340 billion by 2021, $480 billion by 2023, and at least an additional $1 trillion in the subsequent decade. These savings complement the new patient safety initiative that could lower Medicare costs by another $50 billion over the next decade by providing better care. The President’s framework includes initiatives that will:
* Bend the long-term cost curve by setting a more ambitious target of holding Medicare cost growth per beneficiary to GDP per capita plus 0.5 percent beginning in 2018, through strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).
* Make Medicaid more flexible, efficient and accountable without resorting to block granting the program, ending our partnership with States or reducing health care coverage for seniors in nursing homes, the most economically vulnerable and people with disabilities. Combined Medicaid savings of at least $100 billion over 10 years.
* Reduce Medicare’s excessive spending on prescription drugs and lower drug premiums for beneficiaries without shifting costs to seniors or privatizing Medicare. Combined Medicare savings of at least $200 billion over 10 years.
* Other mandatory spending: Outside of health care, comprehensive deficit reduction must include savings in other mandatory programs, including agricultural subsidies, the federal pension insurance system, and anti-fraud measures, while protecting and strengthening programs that serve low-income families and other vulnerable Americans. The President’s framework includes a target of $360 billion in savings from other mandatory programs by 2023.
* Tax reform: the President is calling for individual tax reform that closes loopholes and produces a system which is simpler, fairer and not rigged in favor of those who can afford lawyers and accountants to game it. The President supports the Fiscal Commission’s goal of reducing tax expenditures enough to both lower rates and lower the deficit.
* Social Security: The President does not believe that Social Security is in crisis nor is a driver of our near-term deficit problems. But, in the context of an aging population and a Social Security wage base that is declining as a share of overall earnings, Social Security faces long-term challenges that are better addressed sooner than later to ensure that the program remains for future generations the rock-solid benefit for older Americans that it has been for past generations. That is why the President supports bipartisan efforts to strengthen Social Security for the long haul. These efforts should be guided by several principles, including strengthening the program and not privatizing it, improving retirement security for the vulnerable while protecting people with disabilities and current beneficiaries, and not slashing benefits for future generations."

See further details at website:
FACT SHEET: The President's Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility | The White House

That's a good start. At least provides some framework for discussion. Hopefully there are some red meat details behind those platitudes for actual analysis/scrutiny of a granular plan.
 
You asked for an example of a Democrat who's a socialist who ran as a Democrat. That you don't address your own question means again... you don't want to answer. More dishonesty? I'm surprised [/sarc]
No, I asked for a Democrcat who's a member of the Socialist Party.

The Tea Party isn't a political party... did you miss that the first two times when I first stated it, then proved it? Oh that's right, a Florida Democrat registered the Tea Party as a 3rd party and therefore, that makes it applicable everywhere. :lamo
Creating a strawman so you can beat it up doesn't help your position. I never said because it's a political party in Florida means it's applicable everywhere, I said that the Tea Party can register as a political party in every state, just like they did in Florida. :roll:

And let's get back to the point of all this... you asked, basically, why doesn't the Tea Party have the balls to run as a Tea Party. You implied that they have to disguise themselves as Republicans. You answered your own question and didn't even know it. Since you pointed out the Tea Party in Florida registered as a 3rd party - they ARE running as a 3rd party to Republicans in Florida.

Florida Tea Party

So locally it's happening in Florida.
Hmm, but weren't you saying those aren't real "Tea Partiers," that they're really Democrats. So the only Tea Partiers in the entire country with stones to run as Tea Partiers are in one state and they're former Democrats? Is that right?
 
No, I asked for a Democrcat who's a member of the Socialist Party.

Look, we don't really care about Socialists Internationale and whos registered like in Sweden, etc. We got our own context here and some dems are socialist and some just regular. You might not like the context, but no one cares about some international designation of horse crap. For a US politician to openly identify with or register with a socialist organization would be political suicide. We don't like 'em here but we figure we got a few of our own sort, if you could mind context.

Arguing the semantics of socialist is grasping for understanding, and annoying.
 
Last edited:
I have nothing to dodge... the buck stops with Obama just as it stops with every other President. What's a dodge is you making some Obama exception by continuing to make excuses. That's called BS spin, especially when the Progressive faithful make every excuse in the book so Mr. Obama doesn't look bad.
Of course it was a dodge, it was a nonsensical answer you gave to my post. It's quit possible I know something you don't. Debt is a function of two things: spending and income. So you need to show where all of the debt incurred since he became president is spending.

Also, if the debt was as bad as conservatives say it is, how come nations buy our debt at historically low interest rates?
 
The fact that tea party types have to run as a Republican rather than honestly build a true political party and call it the Tea Party, is simply evidence of how disingenuous they are and how they only want short term power and have no real interest in building a real political party. I would say the same for libertarians like both Pauls who despite their status and the official pin-up boys for libertarianism, run as Republicans. I guess a run on the Libertarian ticket for President and getting his clocked cleaned taught Ron Paul the lesson of his life.
 
Thier lack of interest organizing as an actual political party shows they have no interest in building a political party.

Wow.....

:slow clap:

That's some breath taking logic there. Did you know the people who score the most points in football win the game? Are you related to John Madden?

Next you're going to tell me that the Anti-War Movement wasn't interested in pushing a broad political ideology but were simply for pushing anti-war policy. Your insight is astounding.
 
Last edited:
No, I asked for a Democrcat who's a member of the Socialist Party.
Already provided - but keep asking, even though it's a weak way to avoid answering.


Creating a strawman so you can beat it up doesn't help your position. I never said because it's a political party in Florida means it's applicable everywhere, I said that the Tea Party can register as a political party in every state, just like they did in Florida.
So you admit the Tea Party isn't a political party. Excellent!


Hmm, but weren't you saying those aren't real "Tea Partiers," that they're really Democrats. So the only Tea Partiers in the entire country with stones to run as Tea Partiers are in one state and they're former Democrats? Is that right?
I never said any such thing... I believe I posted a correction to your misinformation that Frank O'Neal was a Republican and as a by product, showed that Fran O'Neal (a Democrat) started the Tea Party movement (or one of them) in Florida. Let me educate you: The Tea Party around the country are separate and independent. There is no centralized management or party leadership. Democrats, Independents and Republicans all are part of the Tea Party ... also called Diversification.

Common sense doesn't have a party affiliation, hence the Tea Party is open to and has membership of anyone who shares their policy views. Perhaps you should go to a local meeting and see it for yourself.
 
Of course it was a dodge, it was a nonsensical answer you gave to my post.
To be frank, it's difficult to answer your posts as all of them tend to be nonsensical.... and it's very difficult to bring a logical, methodical discussion normally.
It's quit possible I know something you don't.
I'm sure you do, whether or not it's relevant or not is the question.

Debt is a function of two things: spending and income. So you need to show where all of the debt incurred since he became president is spending.
That's a strawman, as I've never claimed all the debt incurred from one President. What I have said in various threads is that this President has taken the GW Bush spending and turned it up 2 notches and in many ways has extended the spending spree beyond the TARP level into the stupidity level. Given this economic 2 1/2 years his spending isn't just reckless as it normally would be, it's downright dangerous. The obligated debt of the United States is (depending on who and what sources provide it) between 50 Trillion and 62 Trillion dollars. That's money already spent.

Also, if the debt was as bad as conservatives say it is, how come nations buy our debt at historically low interest rates?
They buy it because those nations still have confidence that America can pay it back, and if we cannot then provide other resources, agreements, treatises, etc., to make up the difference.
 
amazing how you don't actually respond to what's written, but think that you have posted a point. we aren't saying it's wrong of him to cut Defense. we are saying it's wrong of him to want to claim credit for cutting spending we were never going to engage in.

But we are engaged in it (Re: Afghanistan) and will be for a long time much as we are in Korea and Vietnam today. Oh, it won't be an indefinite military presence, but we will be involved in the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq for some time. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.

America and NATO/coalition forces will draw down significantly in both countries. Fact is, we and Europeans detest prolonged warfare. It's just not in our blood...er, um...character to be so heavily engaged in prolonged fighting especially when it's hand-to-hand/close quarters combat. But that aside, Afghanistan and Iraq are in a mess - a mess we either helped create and/or were full participants in. Just as after WWII in the rebuilding of both Germany and Japan, we have a responsibility as a nation that prides itself on humanitarianism to help get these countries back on their feet - like it or not. So, we will be involved in Iraq and Afghanistan for some time. Call it...a silent form of nation building because in a few years most Americans won't give either country a second thought. But the governments of all nations involved will remember and won't let the next president nor his/her successors forget until these nations are rebuilt.
 
That's a strawman, as I've never claimed all the debt incurred from one President. What I have said in various threads is that this President has taken the GW Bush spending and turned it up 2 notches and in many ways has extended the spending spree beyond the TARP level into the stupidity level. Given this economic 2 1/2 years his spending isn't just reckless as it normally would be, it's downright dangerous. The obligated debt of the United States is (depending on who and what sources provide it) between 50 Trillion and 62 Trillion dollars. That's money already spent.
This is not a strawman, Republicans, conservatives and YOU are blaming Obama for the $4 trillion added to the debt since he became president. Obama had the Stimulus and troop surge in Afghanistan, so where are the two notches you speak of????
 
The fact that tea party types have to run as a Republican rather than honestly build a true political party and call it the Tea Party, is simply evidence of how disingenuous they are and how they only want short term power and have no real interest in building a real political party. I would say the same for libertarians like both Pauls who despite their status and the official pin-up boys for libertarianism, run as Republicans. I guess a run on the Libertarian ticket for President and getting his clocked cleaned taught Ron Paul the lesson of his life.



the tea party is a movement, not a political party, this is a known. I don't think trying to mold it into something someone who doesnt support it wants it to be is a good argument.
 
This is not a strawman, Republicans, conservatives and YOU are blaming Obama for the $4 trillion added to the debt since he became president.
You're right, it's a vast generalization applied to anyone who calls themselves a Conservative or Republican. That's MUCH better than a strawman. :lamo

I still never claimed that. You might, just might want to stop treating everyone you don't agree with the same and start treating them as individuals. Even though YOU may live up to the progressive liberal ideal and stereotype, doesn't mean all Republicans and Conservatives are like you. Just a tip there for ya. :wink:

Obama had the Stimulus and troop surge in Afghanistan, so where are the two notches you speak of????
Let's see list the Obama Spend-O Rama is the challenge huh? Okay...

TALF/PPIP
Obama Care
Continuing Afghanistan, Iraq and opening up a 3rd "non-hostile" war with Libya

Hmm... didn't Obama say and vote against these types of wars when he was in the Senate. :think:

But it's all here... in the 2012 Budget. You remember this don't you Petey - it's the one which got a 97 nay and 0 yea vote in the Senate? Somehow I don't see the amount of spending going down... but it's going up.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/
 
Already provided - but keep asking, even though it's a weak way to avoid answering.
No, you provided a list of Democrats whose names appeared on a list on Democratic Socialists of America (no evidence they are or were even members of that organization). I asked you to name Democrats who are members of the Socialist Party. Do you know the difference between Democratic Socialists of America and the Socialist Party? Also, the list you gave is titled, "Members of the Progressive Caucus." That doesn't make them Socialist.

So you admit the Tea Party isn't a political party. Excellent!
It is in Florida.


Hmm, but weren't you saying those aren't real "Tea Partiers," that they're really Democrats.

I never said any such thing...
Really? Then who posted this to me ...

“The recent flurry of last minute filings by so –called “tea party candidates” looks awfully suspicious,” said GOP Chairman John Thrasher in a statement. “While a few tea-party candidates across the state do have ties to the tea party movement, in the majority of instances, it appears that the Democrats have coordinated a dishonest attempt to hide phony candidates behind the name “tea party” and to confuse voters who may be supportive of the tea party movement, effectively stealing votes from true conservative candidates and injuring the grassroots tea party movement as a whole.”​

... if not you?
 
You're right, it's a vast generalization applied to anyone who calls themselves a Conservative or Republican. That's MUCH better than a strawman. :lamo

I still never claimed that. You might, just might want to stop treating everyone you don't agree with the same and start treating them as individuals. Even though YOU may live up to the progressive liberal ideal and stereotype, doesn't mean all Republicans and Conservatives are like you. Just a tip there for ya. :wink:
I said Republicans and conservative, I never said all of them. :wink:


Let's see list the Obama Spend-O Rama is the challenge huh? Okay...

TALF/PPIP
Obama Care
Continuing Afghanistan, Iraq and opening up a 3rd "non-hostile" war with Libya

Care to put price tags on these? Since expenditures for "ObamaCare" doesn't start for a couple of years, you'll find a goose egg in that column now.
 
Thier lack of interest organizing as an actual political party shows they have no interest in building a political party.

Wow.....

:slow clap:

That's some breath taking logic there. Did you know the people who score the most points in football win the game? Are you related to John Madden?

Next you're going to tell me that the Anti-War Movement wasn't interested in pushing a broad political ideology but were simply for pushing anti-war policy. Your insight is astounding.

Actually it shows two very apparent truths that seemed to escape you - perhaps intentionally , perhaps because you have willful blinders on about them.

1) they are now and always have been Republicans
2) they would no more start a third party to hurt their precious Republicans than they would vote Democratic

I just wish they would drop the "party" from their name as its a gross lie. Is there any other political movement called a party in politics that is not a political party?
 
Democrats only know one thing - how to spend like there's no tomorrow. 2012 will have Obama spending this country into slavery to China. They can't help themselves. While demonizing the Tea Party as whatever you last saw on MSNBC (I think you've been channeling Ed ****z or possibly Mancow's talking points), the reality is the Tea Party pushing for fiscal responsibility which flys in the face of spend spend spend progressive liberal hacks. 2012 with Obama killing off this country might be a good thing... perhaps that will see progressive liberalism die a long slow painful death as it so deserves. Best bury decomposing **** instead of having it stink up the place when it all does crash. Progressive dumbasses.

Ah, but the evidence is to the contrary. The debt/GNP consistently goes down under Democratic leadership and up on the leadership of the Regressives.
 

Attachments

  • debt2.gif
    debt2.gif
    15.6 KB · Views: 84
Actually it shows two very apparent truths that seemed to escape you - perhaps intentionally , perhaps because you have willful blinders on about them.

1) they are now and always have been Republicans
2) they would no more start a third party to hurt their precious Republicans than they would vote Democratic

I just wish they would drop the "party" from their name as its a gross lie. Is there any other political movement called a party in politics that is not a political party?

Believe the "Teaparty" was just the reawakening of the principles of Conservatism. Concepts/principles which the Republican party has drifted away from over the recent years. And it appears that the teaparty voices have shocked the GOP as a whole into reacquainting themselves with those conservative basics.

The Teaparty movement never associated to the formality of a "political party". But it did make a lot more sense for the GOP to respond to their voices than it would the Democrats.

Think its about as simple as that.
 
Actually it shows two very apparent truths that seemed to escape you - perhaps intentionally , perhaps because you have willful blinders on about them.

1) they are now and always have been Republicans

Factually incorrect. While the numbers may be different now, prior to the 2010 election 40% were independents or Democrats. While a majority of Tea Partiers have been Republicans, the movement has not always been "republicans" period. That's factually incorrect, there's no argument there.

2) they would no more start a third party to hurt their precious Republicans than they would vote Democratic

Of course they wouldn't start a third party, doing so in this country and expecting to have any success is a asinine idea that is an effort in wasting capital. Our system is not set up in a way that running third party is likely to affect change; the only way to affect change is to change one of the two main political parties. Out of those political parties the one that was more fiscally conservative was the Republicans so logic says you primarily work on them because there's farther distance to go to enact said change.

Not to mention that the Tea Party Movements policy focus and views are largely devoid of social issues and hardly touch on every political issue out there, making its viability to have a true party platform that maintains the unity of the movement to be rather difficult. It'd be like asking the Anti-War movement to create a party platform that keeps all their people together. Not all anti-war movement people are pro-choice, environmentalists, pro gun control, pro-universal health care, etc. Yet they by and large vote Democrat because its the party, out of the two main ones, that they have hte best chance of influencing on the policies related to their movement.

I just wish they would drop the "party" from their name as its a gross lie.

Its not a lie. The only people who routinely try to portray them as some kind of national political party are Democrats who are the same people bitching about the fact they have party in the name because it causes confusion. The only reason it potentially causes confusion is the people who want to bitch about the confusion stir up that confusion in the first place.
 
Back
Top Bottom