• 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!

Obama Makes New Budget Sales Pitch; GOP Strikes Back

Zyphlin said:
Oh look, its Obama once again trying to peddle cuts spread out over 10 year which largely backload them to 6+ years after they'd go into effect (you know, after he's out of office), go off the assumption that the future things will actually be continued by future congresses/presidents, and is padded by the ending of things that are inevitably going to conclude.

Wow, I'm thoroughly impressed. No really, bravo.

:roll:

The government must live within its means, and by live within its means we mean live within the additional means we take from you that will allow us to perpetuate our spending until such point that I'm no longer in office in which case sure then we can make some decent cuts.
Click to expand...

Obamaturd realizes he has to spend lots of money to keep buying the votes he needs to keep him in office. Until this government makes massive cuts, no one should pay anymore taxes-especially those who already pay far far more than their share (and don't need the feedback to know that government spending is out of control)
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Let's cut Defense spending to zero (having a military is soooo 20th century). What next?
Click to expand...


Another one that did not read the thread before commenting. That was already addressed:

Then we cut our excessive military spending back to defense spending only, re-regulate the banks that caused the financial meltdown, increase the cap on SS to $180,000, and upgrade our health care system as every other industrialized country has done.
Click to expand...


..............
 
Catawba said:
Another one that did not read the thread before commenting. That was already addressed:
Click to expand...

Thanks, I read the thread. My chart clearly shows that even if defense spending was cut to zero the deficit would still exceed the entire fiscal deficit for FY 2007. You say to increase the cap on SS to $180,000. I like where your head is at. How much do you project that will save us? I'm assuming you are referring to increasing the cap on earnings subject to SS taxes. How can you predict for a second what that would cut from the deficit over 10 years?
 
Last edited:
Rhapsody1447 said:
Thanks, I read the thread. My chart clearly shows that even if defense spending was cut to zero the deficit would still exceed the entire fiscal deficit for FY 2007. You say to increase the cap on SS to $180,000. I like where your head is at. How much do you project that will save us? I'm assuming you are referring to increasing the cap on earnings subject to SS taxes. How can you predict for a second what that would cut from the deficit over 10 years?
Click to expand...


We cut the spending for the military industrial complex back to defensive levels only, about $250 billion, saving about a half a trillion annually. We increase the taxes on millionaires and billionaires to 30% on all income, that reduces the deficit another 100 billion a year.. Raising the cap on SS to $180,000 makes SS solvent for the long term eliminating the $820 billion you have indicated in your graph. Upgrading to a single payer health care system would cut our health care costs in half, so we can reduce $770 billion there. After we have unemployment back to the 3% level tax receipts will be high enough for us to have a balanced budget without throwing the most vulnerable under the bus for the excesses by those with money and power over the last 30 years.

And btw, SS benefits have never been increased when there was an increase in the many times the SS cap has been increased in the past.
 
Catawba said:
We cut the spending for the military industrial complex back to defensive levels only, about $250 billion, saving about a half a trillion annually. We increase the taxes on millionaires and billionaires to 30% on all income, that reduces the deficit another 100 billion a year.. Raising the cap on SS to $180,000 makes SS solvent for the long term eliminating the $820 billion you have indicated in your graph. Upgrading to a single payer health care system would cut our health care costs in half, so we can reduce $770 billion there. After we have unemployment back to the 3% level tax receipts will be high enough for us to have a balanced budget without throwing the most vulnerable under the bus for the excesses by those with money and power over the last 30 years.

And btw, SS benefits have never been increased when there was an increase in the many times the SS cap has been increased in the past.
Click to expand...

Some pretty heady predictions. Whether we could field even a "defensive" military for 250b/yr is questionable. Increasing taxes on the wealthy would certainly have economic repercussions, Removing 100b from many of the very people that create jobs isn't necessarily good. It would make more sense to revamp the tax code to get rid of loopholes as opposed to another new tax regime for tax professionals to exploit. I agree raising the cap on SS would work, unfortunately all it would do is increase the pool of money to be spent and replaced by IOUs. A single payer system would cut costs in half? Sorry that's just silly. A single payer changes none of the drivers of HC increases.

When you say single payer I'm assuming you mean the govt. That pretty much destroys any chance of lower administrative costs. I can just imagine the govt regulating everything from food to the volume on your ipod in the name of controlling HC costs.

How any of this overcomes our nightmare of a tax code, the morass of govt regulation, fierce global competition, and leads to 3% unemployment escapes me.
 
gingern44 said:
Some pretty heady predictions. Whether we could field even a "defensive" military for 250b/yr is questionable. Increasing taxes on the wealthy would certainly have economic repercussions, Removing 100b from many of the very people that create jobs isn't necessarily good. It would make more sense to revamp the tax code to get rid of loopholes as opposed to another new tax regime for tax professionals to exploit. I agree raising the cap on SS would work, unfortunately all it would do is increase the pool of money to be spent and replaced by IOUs. A single payer system would cut costs in half? Sorry that's just silly. A single payer changes none of the drivers of HC increases.

When you say single payer I'm assuming you mean the govt. That pretty much destroys any chance of lower administrative costs. I can just imagine the govt regulating everything from food to the volume on your ipod in the name of controlling HC costs.

How any of this overcomes our nightmare of a tax code, the morass of govt regulation, fierce global competition, and leads to 3% unemployment escapes me.
Click to expand...
Right. I would just add that cutting half a trillion from defense annually means somewhere in the range of 1 million job losses. Probably more. Raising tax rates will raise revenue, but every dollar taken out of circulation to reduce the deficit is a dollar taken out of circulation that might otherwise be invested or spent. Raising the cap on SS to $180,000 is a massive tax increase on the upper middle class. Again, this does nothing but take money out of the private sector. Plus, the reason there is a cap on SS taxes is because there is a cap on SS benefits. If you raise one without raising the other, SS will go from being a social insurance program to a social welfare program--not that the left cares about that.

Finally, the 3% unemployment number based upon all of the above is absurd. We have not had a rate that low since the Korean War.
 
Catawba said:
We cut the spending for the military industrial complex back to defensive levels only, about $250 billion, saving about a half a trillion annually.
Click to expand...

Okay so cut the military to the lowest point in recorded history. Gotcha. $423 billion saved. (See how easy it is to know how much your saving when you cut spending?)

Catawba said:
We increase the taxes on millionaires and billionaires to 30% on all income, that reduces the deficit another 100 billion a year..
Click to expand...

Speculation on future revenue.

Catawba said:
Raising the cap on SS to $180,000 makes SS solvent for the long term eliminating the $820 billion you have indicated in your graph.
Click to expand...

More speculation on future revenue.

Raising the cap on SS would remove ALL SS spending? What? That $820 billion is what is projected to be paid in 2013, how would marginally raising the cap have any impact on the amount spent?

Catawba said:
Upgrading to a single payer health care system would cut our health care costs in half, so we can reduce $770 billion there.
Click to expand...

More speculation on future revenue. $770 billion from where? Medicare?

Catawba said:
After we have unemployment back to the 3% level tax receipts will be high enough for us to have a balanced budget
Click to expand...

More speculation on future economic conditions (i.e. employment and revenue)

This just shows the lunacy in trying to achieve a balanced budget without touching entitlement reform. MANDATORY SPENDING WAS GREATER THAN TAX REVENUE IN 2011! How can anyone honestly advocate for a balanced budget while completely ignoring 70% of the federal budget? Your solution (like so many on your side of the aisle) is to raise taxes, cross your fingers, and hope not to die.
 
Catawba said:
And, I haven't seen any proposals by Congressional Republicans for spending cuts that come anywhere close to $4 trillion over ten years.
Click to expand...

you must have missed the budget passed last year by the House that cut $6 Trillion. you may recall - everyone calls it the "Ryan Budget"? only it had actual cuts?


and the President's budget does not cut $4 Trillion - what a joke. deciding not to spend money in Iraq that nobody had ever even suggested we spend in the first place is not a "savings" any more than you can record savings by declaring in the Budget that we will Not Build Newt Gingrich's Moon Base. :roll:



and the growth assumptions in this thing.... especially considering the tax hikes... are friggin hilarious. :lol: hooray! happy days are here again!
 
AdamT said:
Nah, let's cut out all education, environment, and energy spending. That adds up to a whopping ... about 1/3 of military spending.

Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg
Click to expand...

Cut entitlement spending and defense spending both by 1/3rd. You'll save roughly 1 trillion dollars on the budget and bring total spending outlays under total receipts, obliterating the deficit. Any additional cuts you make to the other 1/4th of government that isn't made up of those two primary expenditures simply goes to allowing the U.S. to potentially pay more towards its debt each year, thus helping to reduce any difference between receipts and outlays by reducing our required debt payment each year.

A 1/3rd cut in spending on both sides of that equation would still relegate Entitlement and Defense spending as a majority of our government spending...simply changing it from 3/4ths of our spending to 2/3rds.

Education, subsidies, foreign aid, these things are drops in the bucket compared to defense and especially entitlement. Drops in the bucket do add up, but they don't really begin to make a noticable difference until the rest of the water in the bucket is relatively low. Unless you seriously look at curbing spending in the biggest offenders, and mind you entitlement spending is verging on 3:1 more than defense spending, you're just playing games. From my memory, I believe if we cut every bit of defense spending that's spent in any fashion...I mean cut all the way, down to $0...we'd STILL need to raise revenues, total revenues, by around 35% just to break even. If we cut everything but mandatory spending I think we'd just barely be coming under the deficit line. Raising taxes, unless you're going to astronomical levels, is a similar drop in the bucket as those other things I stated. Could it potentially be part of the solution? Maybe. But nothing is going to have a significant effect until the elephant and the ****ing MAMMOTH in the room get addressed seriously.
 
Catawba said:
We cut the spending for the military industrial complex back to defensive levels only, about $250 billion, saving about a half a trillion annually.
Click to expand...

$250 from what current expenditures is or after the $150 comes off the books from Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm asking only because, in a previous post you've made on this subject, you were indicating the numbers would come after the fact. So I thought I'd clarify.

If the latter, then you're talking about cutting spending from the post-war levels by 50%, or essentially 60% of what it is now. If the former, then you're looking
at about a 38% cut to the defense.

We increase the taxes on millionaires and billionaires to 30% on all income, that reduces the deficit another 100 billion a year.
Click to expand...

I'll even take this one on face value and assume true

Raising the cap on SS to $180,000 makes SS solvent for the long term eliminating the $820 billion you have indicated in your graph.
Click to expand...

So you're suggesting to increase the amount people are required to pay into social security? Are you also suggesting upping the maximum individuals can recieve back in social security, or are you simply stating that some people have to pay more for everyone else?

Upgrading to a single payer health care system would cut our health care costs in half, so we can reduce $770 billion there.
Click to expand...

MAJOR assumption here with no guarantee or certainty what so ever that the number results in actual correct spending reduction.

After we have unemployment back to the 3% level tax receipts will be high enough for us to have a balanced budget
Click to expand...

Another GIANT assumption that we'll be back to 3% unemployment anytime soon for it to be anywhere relevant to balancing the budget in the near term

without throwing the most vulnerable under the bus for the excesses by those with money and power over the last 30 years.
Click to expand...

Pure emotional babble with no worth while value.

And btw, SS benefits have never been increased when there was an increase in the many times the SS cap has been increased in the past.
Click to expand...

And are you suggesting the same happen this time, and as such are you accounting for that change in the amount of entitlement spending?
 
Catawba said:
Lets see your link for a tax credit increase for Chevy Volt only? I bet you will find it is for all electric cars. It would be extremely short-sighted and unwise to create future economic problems through peak oil and global warming while addressing our current economic problems

Private schools with students of the same cultural and income levels perform no better than public schools.
Click to expand...


Chevy Volt | Electric Car | Barack Obama | The Daily Caller
Seriously? You're ok if its more than just the Volt? Cut the subsidies period. No car should have a 10k subsidy attached to it. NONE.

President's Budget Proposal Fails to Fund D.C. Voucher Program - MarketWatch
Evaluation of the Impact of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final Report
http://www.dcscholarships.org/eleme... - Press Release (2011-12 OSP Enrollment).pdf

You have google, use it, tired of doing all your legwork.
 
I like this chart better Adam. Your departmental breakdown ignores how the money is actually getting spent by divinding all the entitlement programs into various smaller slices.

outlay pie chart.jpg

Thats a much clearer picture on actual spending.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Okay so cut the military to the lowest point in recorded history. Gotcha. $423 billion saved. (See how easy it is to know how much your saving when you cut spending?)
Click to expand...

No, just back to levels before the Korean war.

Speculation on future revenue.
Click to expand...

Reasonable forecasts.

Raising the cap on SS would remove ALL SS spending? What? That $820 billion is what is projected to be paid in 2013, how would marginally raising the cap have any impact on the amount spent?
Click to expand...

Raising the cap means there are enough revenues coming in to cover costs, making it self sufficient as it was designed to be. SS has a surplus of $2.6 trillion dollars that keep it solvent to 2036, raising the cap to $180,000 keeps it solvent for the long term.


More speculation on future revenue. $770 billion from where? Medicare?
Click to expand...

Yes. Health care costs for countries that have UHC are half of what they are in the US.



More speculation on future economic conditions (i.e. employment and revenue)
Click to expand...

Reasonable forecasts.

This just shows the lunacy in trying to achieve a balanced budget without touching entitlement reform. MANDATORY SPENDING WAS GREATER THAN TAX REVENUE IN 2011! How can anyone honestly advocate for a balanced budget while completely ignoring 70% of the federal budget? Your solution (like so many on your side of the aisle) is to raise taxes, cross your fingers, and hope not to die.
Click to expand...

Since SS is not the cause of our debt, it would be stupid to cut the most successful program the country has ever had to pay for other program failures. The only way to cut health care costs is to upgrade our health care system as every other industrialized country has done.

We will never balance the budget as long as people want to continue excessive military spending and continuing the tax cuts for the rich. We have 30 years of experience of this to know that it is true.
 
Zyphlin said:
$250 from what current expenditures is or after the $150 comes off the books from Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm asking only because, in a previous post you've made on this subject, you were indicating the numbers would come after the fact. So I thought I'd clarify.

If the latter, then you're talking about cutting spending from the post-war levels by 50%, or essentially 60% of what it is now. If the former, then you're looking
at about a 38% cut to the defense.



I'll even take this one on face value and assume true



So you're suggesting to increase the amount people are required to pay into social security? Are you also suggesting upping the maximum individuals can recieve back in social security, or are you simply stating that some people have to pay more for everyone else?



MAJOR assumption here with no guarantee or certainty what so ever that the number results in actual correct spending reduction.



Another GIANT assumption that we'll be back to 3% unemployment anytime soon for it to be anywhere relevant to balancing the budget in the near term



Pure emotional babble with no worth while value.



And are you suggesting the same happen this time, and as such are you accounting for that change in the amount of entitlement spending?
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-blogs/119008-obama-makes-new-budget-sales-pitch-gop-strikes-back-7.html#post1060201392
 
OpportunityCost said:
Chevy Volt | Electric Car | Barack Obama | The Daily Caller
Seriously? You're ok if its more than just the Volt? Cut the subsidies period. No car should have a 10k subsidy attached to it. NONE.
Click to expand...


Just as I thought, the tax credit is good for all alternatively fueled vehicles, not just the Chevy Volt. Given that global warming and peak oil are already costing our economy more than this amount, will will cost us even more in the future, this is good preventative medicine.

Where were you when we wasted $2 trillion dollars in Iraq??? Are you aware that Romney plans on increasing spending on the military, upon which we already spend almost as much as the rest of the world COMBINED!!!
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-blogs/119008-obama-makes-new-budget-sales-pitch-gop-strikes-back-7.html#post1060201392
Click to expand...

Catawba said:
No, just back to levels before the Korean war.
Click to expand...

Dollar amount or percent of GDP amount?

Reasonable forecasts.
Click to expand...

Opinion.

Raising the cap means there are enough revenues coming in to cover costs, making it self sufficient as it was designed to be. SS has a surplus of $2.6 trillion dollars that keep it solvent to 2036, raising the cap to $180,000 keeps it solvent for the long term.
Click to expand...

Doesn't answer my question.

Yes. Health care costs for countries that have UHC are half of what they are in the US.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to your statement. Simply because those countries costs are half of what they are for the US does not mean that the US will cut ours in half. Is what they're spending currently half of what they were spending before? Could it possibly be that the size and scope and regulations and other differences of our country would create a different situation? Against, questionable speculation and guessing at best by you put across as a hard number.

Reasonable forecasts.
Click to expand...

Again, your opinion based on questionable reasoning and guesses at best, used to justify something as if its a hard and useful number.

Since SS is not the cause of our debt
Click to expand...

There's no specific budgetary or mandatory items that do or don't contribute to our debt. All of them do. We do not have a system in this country that allocates that tax dollar X goes specifically to spending project Y, so you can not declare that any singular entity of government spending does or doesn't contribute to the debt. As long as we are running a deficit, the spending of government as a whole is causing that debt.

You would perhaps...PERHAPS...be correct if the money gain from Social Security taxes was only used to pay for social security and that any left over was actually rolled over into the following year, and if the roll over plus what was brought in was equal to or greater what hte payout is. This however is not how the government has treated Social Security for quite some time so acting like that is how it works is dishonest and frankly nothing but a fantasy.

it would be stupid to cut the most successful program the country has ever had to pay for other program failures.
Click to expand...

In my opinion it'd be stupid not to cut something that helps make up over 1/2 of all our spending.

The only way to cut health care costs is to upgrade our health care system as every other industrialized country has done.
Click to expand...

That's just plainly and factually false. That is not the "only way".

We will never balance the budget as long as people want to continue excessive military spending and continuing the tax cuts for the rich.
Click to expand...

Excessive Military Spending = Opinion

Bitching about tax cuts for the rich = Emotional ploy

We could cut every single solitary dime of defense spending and raise the taxes on the rich to Clinton levels and we'd still likely be running a deficit.

I'm so glad you took the time to answer my post by linking to one where you defended your worthless guessed numbers by stating your worthless opinion that they're good, didn't address some of my issues, repeatedly just tried to play on emotional ploys, and continued your worthless predictable hyper partisan drum beat of tax tax tax tax spend spend spend spend.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Dollar amount or percent of GDP amount?
Click to expand...


Dollar amount of course, as military threats are not proportional to our GDP. We just have to spend more than the next top spender.



Opinion.
Click to expand...

Reasonable forecast.


Doesn't answer my question.
Click to expand...

I answered it in the response to the other poster, and I provided you with a link to it.
We have never increased benefits in all the other times we have raised the SS cap. And yes, it does mean that the wealthiest in the country pay a little more, just as they have each time the cap has been increased in the past. But, I shouldn't feel too sorry for the rich as they have benefitted from 3 decades of tax cuts.



Irrelevant to your statement. Simply because those countries costs are half of what they are for the US does not mean that the US will cut ours in half. Is what they're spending currently half of what they were spending before? Could it possibly be that the size and scope and regulations and other differences of our country would create a different situation? Against, questionable speculation and guessing at best by you put across as a hard number.
Click to expand...

I was talking about when the US gets serious about addressing its debt. We are not there yet, because we still waste so much on military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy. However, when we do get serious about the debt, we will have to upgrade our heath care system as the rest of the industrialized world has done. We have the most expensive health care system in the world.



Again, your opinion based on questionable reasoning and guesses at best, used to justify something as if its a hard and useful number.
Click to expand...

Reasonable forecast based on the the past.



There's no specific budgetary or mandatory items that do or don't contribute to our debt. All of them do. We do not have a system in this country that allocates that tax dollar X goes specifically to spending project Y, so you can not declare that any singular entity of government spending does or doesn't contribute to the debt. As long as we are running a deficit, the spending of government as a whole is causing that debt.
Click to expand...

Did you forget we keep an account of SS receipts and expenditures??? SS has a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus. It is the most well run program in the federal government.

The general fund has a budget problem, and when it gets serious enough we will cut our excessive military spending and tax breaks for the rich.


That's just plainly and factually false. That is not the "only way".
Click to expand...

Its the only way without limiting access and quality of care.


Excessive Military Spending = Opinion
Click to expand...

Fact, there is data that shows we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined. We can no longer afford to do so.

Bitching about tax cuts for the rich = Emotional ploy
Click to expand...

Bitching about the debt, without addressing the true cause = Emotional ploy.


We could cut every single solitary dime of defense spending and raise the taxes on the rich to Clinton levels and we'd still likely be running a deficit.
Click to expand...

You ignore the fact that we will eventually emerge from the Bush Recession, and that we will eventually upgrade our health care system.

Romney only offers increased spending and more tax cuts for the rich = more debt!
 
OpportunityCost said:
No it was Sparky's statement, not mine. Im just calling out someone for obvious intellectual dishonesty. This is exactly why you get treated like a troll, because frequently, you act like one.
Click to expand...

I'm just stating based on some of the news reports I've been seeing including CSPAN,FOX and CNN and the GOP claims that they've written their proposal for both the recent Job Bill and Budget Plan but Harry Reid won't present them and is instead burying them . Also Reid won't comment whether those claims are true or not.
 
Last edited:
Sparky said:
I'm just stating based on some of the news reports I've been seeing including CSPAN,FOX and CNN and the GOP claims that they've written their proposal for both the recent Job Bill and Budget Plan but Harry Reid won't present them and is instead burying them . Also Reid won't comment whether those claims are true or not.
Click to expand...

Is this what you are talking about:

S. 1549 - American Jobs Act of 2011
"Labor and employment. 112th Congress (2011-2012) View bill details

Sponsor: Harry Reid

Summary:
A bill to provide tax relief for American workers and businesses, to put workers back on the job while rebuilding and modernizing America, and to provide pathways back to work for Americans looking for jobs. (by CRS)

Status:
The bill has passed through committee and has been put on a legislative calendar."

American Jobs Act of 2011 - Vote: Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time. | Total Campaign Contributions | MapLight - Money and Politics
 
Catawba said:
We cut the spending for the military industrial complex back to defensive levels only, about $250 billion, saving about a half a trillion annually. We increase the taxes on millionaires and billionaires to 30% on all income, that reduces the deficit another 100 billion a year.. Raising the cap on SS to $180,000 makes SS solvent for the long term eliminating the $820 billion you have indicated in your graph. Upgrading to a single payer health care system would cut our health care costs in half, so we can reduce $770 billion there. After we have unemployment back to the 3% level tax receipts will be high enough for us to have a balanced budget without throwing the most vulnerable under the bus for the excesses by those with money and power over the last 30 years.

And btw, SS benefits have never been increased when there was an increase in the many times the SS cap has been increased in the past.
Click to expand...

We couldn't even maintain a modern navy on that, and just when China is building up you want to cut our defenses. What did you do, take an oath to defend the Chinese constitution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom