• 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: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

What is the definition of a "spending cut"? We know what a tax increase is. We've all seen that. We've never seen a government spending cut. What is it? Let's see, is it spending less next year than this year? No. It isn't that. So, what is it?

Generally, a spending cut is whenever they appropriate less than the projection for that year.
 
wrong again

neither the boehner nor reid cuts reduce net spending

you really need to get the facts, sydney

Once again, you have no idea what I said. :coffeepap
 
I really don't think tax increases have a huge effect, espeically (sic) on those who make the most.

tell it to obama

except it's too late

he CAVED again
 
Generally, a spending cut is whenever they appropriate less than the projection for that year.

This was the closest. Anything less than they wanted to spend is a cut. So, this year they spend X, they wanted to spend X+9% next year, they spend X+7% so they "saved" 2%. Damn I'm glad no one explained that to my ex-wife. You can cut, and spend more. Washington is truly wonderful. So maybe for liberals, if they were wanting to raise taxes by 25% and only raised them 20%, they could then claim it was a reduction in taxes. Same thing.
 
CBO: Democrats’ debt bill tops GOP’s in spending cuts

"The Senate Democratic debt-limit bill would cut future spending by $2.2 trillion over 10 years — much deeper than the House GOP alternative, according to figures Congress‘ chief scorekeeper released early Wednesday.

The Congressional Budget Office said the plan by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would raise the government’s borrowing limit by $2.7 trillion, and cut $2.2 trillion from future spending, chiefly by limiting the amount of money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

House Speaker John A. Boehner’s plan, meanwhile, would produce just $850 billion in savings, versus $900 billion in new debt authority, according to a CBO analysis released late Tuesday. That sent the Ohio Republican back to the drawing board to rewrite his bill to try to meet his own pledge of topping any debt increase dollar-for-dollar with new spending cuts."
 
The military savings? They occur whether Reid says they do or not. Subtract that and you get a real CBO score and in recent news the CBO has told Reid that those cuts are not as substantial as he suggests, as in 200 billion worth of scoreable cuts and 2 trillion that occur if things go as planned with the military. Your source is off.

Dont forget Reid's bill also lets the Senate off the hook on writing a budget...like the last 2 years.
 
The military savings? They occur whether Reid says they do or not. Subtract that and you get a real CBO score and in recent news the CBO has told Reid that those cuts are not as substantial as he suggests, as in 200 billion worth of scoreable cuts and 2 trillion that occur if things go as planned with the military. Your source is off.

Dont forget Reid's bill also lets the Senate off the hook on writing a budget...like the last 2 years.

-Boehner is now claiming about $915 billion in cuts (this was after he scrambled for additional cuts in response to the CBO report), whereas when the CBO first scored his plan it was about $850 billion compared to the 1.2 trillion he claimed.

-According to the CBO reports, even if you take defense-related spending out of the equation, the cuts still amount to about $900 billion, greater than Boehner's original 850 (though his team has apparently found additional cuts since then).
 
The military savings?

Yes, our bloated military spending is our most wastful spending. We spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on miltary spending. We could cut our military spending by 60% and still spend more than any other country in the world!!! Our constitution only requires defense, not a super-sized military to police the world at whim.

They occur whether Reid says they do or not.

You have a crystal ball that tells you the GOP was going to vote to end the wars? Perhaps you are older than I am, I have never seen a majority GOP vote to end a war, any war, in my lifetime.

Subtract that and you get a real CBO score and in recent news the CBO has told Reid that those cuts are not as substantial as he suggests, as in 200 billion worth of scoreable cuts and 2 trillion that occur if things go as planned with the military.

Why would you subtract our most wasteful spending and vote to cut earned benefits for seniors?
 
Last edited:
I was watching CSPAN yesterday afternoon where (I believe it was) the Senate Armed Services Committee were discussing military spending. The proposed cap from Congress is around $450B; the SASC has said that figure undercuts what our military needs by half. They also stressed they don't want a blank check, but rather that military spending including spending for our intelligence agencies should be paired with "the threats to our national security" and that spending should be linked to that. In short, the threats of today aren't the same threats from 20-30 years ago. So, if we're to close a base or airfield overseas it had better be because it really is no longer needed because the new threat isn't say in Europe or Russia, but rather it's in the Middle-East.

The way I see it, our military may still attempt to establish bases in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia, as well as maintain a close "partnership" with Eygpt. Frankly, I think we'd be foolish to give up our military presence in Iraq or Afghanistan as long as Iran and Pakistan remain threats (or at the very least "problematic".)

There's something else we should all continue to consider: DARPA is our military think tank. I would imagine tons of tax money is purposely funneled to this agency as so it should be. After all, that's were our steulth concepts originated from. Moreover, we started shifting from needing a "large military footprint" as far as our ground forces are concerned years ago. The shift in military strength (if folks haven't caught on to this by now they haven't been paying attention) is "smart-technology", i.e., laser guided missile defense, satelite communications/imagry (GPS), thinner but tougher body armor, steulth technology, etc., etc....the list goes on and on. The idea being smaller body count, fast moving, lethology, and again steulth. Why do you think China has been calling foul lately claiming that America spends too much money on our military?

I agree that we waste alot of money in defense; however, I wouldn't be too quick to stripe military spending too bare boned. Our military has changed alot since Vietnam and it will go through many more changes in the wake of both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a given we will loose troop stength. Our servicemen and women are tired of being at war for nearly a decade and being forward deployed 3, 4, 5 times. I even heard a member of the SASC mention that one of them knew of a soilder who had been on his 9th deployment. Our troops are dedicated, but they're tired. Smaller, faster, more lethol and steulthier is the direction our military is going. Making such a drastic shift will cost money especially since the days of the draft are very likely far behind us maybe never to return unless another world war ensues.

Now, back to the debt ceiling...

I'm convinced a deal will get done today. It will be larger spending cuts than either party has proposed with no tax increases (revenue raisers) and no entitlement reforms. However, such a deal will be contingent on:

1) pushing the next debt limit increase out to 2013

2) allowing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthing to expire in 2013 coupled with closing tax loopholes

3) reforming Social Security and Medicare in the near future (likely after 2013 as well)

4) getting the jobs bill and the bill on patents out of the House and putting people back to work.

5) (maybe) a balanced budget amendment OR returning to the Balanced Budget and Deficit Control Act of 1985 but this time enacting real caps on entitlements

If I've listened to the "code speak" over the weekend correctly, I think the current proposal will include around $3T in spending cuts which will be split into 2-parts, and as I said above, no new taxes. That should be enough to alteast get us through this impass. What happens after that is a whole different story.

Sidenote: I provided an incomplete statement in the thread (my post #36). What I meant to say was:

You won't get the reforms you belief are necessary in entitlements within the next four days. Not gonna happen. Either we take the best parts of both bills and combine them into one, or both parties will force the President to choose between facing a Constitutional inquiry which the nation will only see as a total capitulation by Congress' failure to do their duty and uphold their consititutional oath to protect the "full faith and credit of the United States" OR he will veto a short-term extension and the country will go into default.
 
Last edited:
Nice try at covering your mistake. You spewed your beer in your response to the NBER assessment that the recession ended in 2009. Did you forget already? Here it is again to remind you: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/104678-poll-debt-ceiling-deal-should-include-cuts-and-tax-increases-14.html#post1059671651

And this was from the person who hasn't provided any documentation to back up his claim that we are currently in a recession.
:sun

good point. we are in a post-Recovery Summer era of wealth and prosperity.
 
Snarkiness does not conceal your mistake, or your lack of acknowledging the same

A technicality in definition of what is and is not a recession doesn't save the argument. 1Q growth was 0.4%. Go explain your technicality to the 9.2% unemployed, and the 14% and > and 15% and > hispanic and african american unemployed population about how the recession is over. I'm sure they'll welcome you with open arms.
 
A technicality in definition of what is and is not a recession doesn't save the argument. 1Q growth was 0.4%. Go explain your technicality to the 9.2% unemployed, and the 14% and > and 15% and > hispanic and african american unemployed population about how the recession is over. I'm sure they'll welcome you with open arms.

The fact that people who are unemployed are not happy with the current economy does not make it a recession. With more than 150k people entering the job market every month (on avg), slow growth increases unemployment, but it doesnt make it a recession.

You are making an appeal to emotion, which is a propoganda technique
 
The fact that people who are unemployed are not happy with the current economy does not make it a recession. With more than 150k people entering the job market every month (on avg), slow growth increases unemployment, but it doesnt make it a recession.

You are making an appeal to emotion, which is a propoganda technique
I think I already addressed the technicality and definition in my previous post. Re-read it as you've said nothing to change that it's a "technicality" based on a arbitrary definition.

I'm simply taking political nonsense and bringing it to the people --- go tell the people how the recession is over and gauge the reaction. Growth needs to be at 5% to significantly improve unemployment. I seriously doubt real people, with real bills and real family's give a **** about your technicality. I've no need of propaganda ... it's in the statistics and the mouths of the people. Sorry you don't like it - but you not liking it doesn't change it. :shrug:
 
I think I already addressed the technicality and definition in my previous post. Re-read it as you've said nothing to change that it's a "technicality" based on a arbitrary definition.

I'm simply taking political nonsense and bringing it to the people --- go tell the people how the recession is over and gauge the reaction. Growth needs to be at 5% to significantly improve unemployment. I seriously doubt real people, with real bills and real family's give a **** about your technicality. I've no need of propaganda ... it's in the statistics and the mouths of the people. Sorry you don't like it - but you not liking it doesn't change it. :shrug:

I've told people who called it a recession that it's not, and explained that it's slow growth. They agreed with me and I'm pretty sure they were "real" people, not fakes. I don't know who you spend your time with, but most people I know are glad to learn more about the economy and how to analyze it accurately.
 
I've told people who called it a recession that it's not, and explained that it's slow growth. They agreed with me and I'm pretty sure they were "real" people, not fakes. I don't know who you spend your time with, but most people I know are glad to learn more about the economy and how to analyze it accurately.

I'm sure you have... :roll: Not everyone I spend my time with is employed, or still has their home, or sees definition of a recession as relevant. What they see is how they can buy enough food and keep a roof over their heads. Tell me again how people just need to be more educated about the accuracy and definition of spending on an empty stomach... do tell.
 
Snarkiness does not conceal your mistake, or your lack of acknowledging the same

interesting. does accusation conceal your inability to realize that he wasn't responding to me?
 
I'm sure you have... :roll: Not everyone I spend my time with is employed, or still has their home, or sees definition of a recession as relevant. What they see is how they can buy enough food and keep a roof over their heads. Tell me again how people just need to be more educated about the accuracy and definition of spending on an empty stomach... do tell.

If someone doesn't think the term is relevant, they are free to do so. It' doesn't mean that we are in a recession, if we aren't.

And I believe that education is always a good thing, even when its' use is not apparent.

And I spent a good portion of my life working for a charity that provided services to the poor. I think I've had enough experience to know that they all don't think the same way or that they are all too stupid to recognize the difference between a recession and being unemployed.
 
I've told people who called it a recession that it's not, and explained that it's slow growth. They agreed with me and I'm pretty sure they were "real" people, not fakes. I don't know who you spend your time with, but most people I know are glad to learn more about the economy and how to analyze it accurately.

Good point. The economic definition of recession does not fit the facts. Slow growth is the correct term. Slow to the point of almost standstill.

The trouble is that these economic terms don't really capture the feeling on the ground. Current approaches to economics, both Austrian and Keynesian, are woefully outmoded for the 21st century economy.

Whether or not you think its a recession or slow growth or whatever, the economy sucks right now, everybody can agree on that.
 
recession not over - Bing

CNN said:
(note: From Sept. 2010)

Economic experts may believe the recession is over, but try telling that to the public.

Seventy-four percent of Americans believe the economy is still in a recession, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. Only 25 percent think the downturn is over.

One-third of Americans say the recession is serious, while another 29 percent characterize it as moderate.

One small cause for optimism: the percentage of Americans who say the country is in a recession has dropped 13 points since August.
Recession not over, public says - CNN


Added video:

 
Last edited:
CNN currently reporting that a deal is close; all cuts, no taxes; 3 trillion dollars.

no link yet. will be interesting to see the details if it passes.
 
CNN currently reporting that a deal is close; all cuts, no taxes; 3 trillion dollars.

no link yet. will be interesting to see the details if it passes.

Last night on C-SPAN, the Senate was debating the Reid proposal. Senator Tom Coburn was speaking and he was speaking against the Reid proposal and he said he was not favorable to the Boehner proposal. He stated that neither plan actually cut the budget. All these proposals did was cut the amount of planned increases and that many billions of increases were still planned. I wonder if $3 trillion is enough to make an actual cut. I wish the people of Congress would be honest with us.
 
President to speak at 8:40 PM EDT : ten minutes from now.
 
Back
Top Bottom