• 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!

Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

[
QUOTE=Kushinator;1066573140]From your previous response:



Which is incorrect, if we want to align the definition of fixing it with eliminating the funding gap after 75 years. If we bring it to 100% (104%):
Click to expand...
dude.. you are the one moving the goals posts... to try and score points.

Your own info shows that it decreases the gap by 76%.. not 100%.

Lets me say that again.. by 76%.. not by 100%.

That's it.
 
Last edited:
Critter7r said:
Right, based on today's estimates.

I'd rather make a single change now that gives us a 50-year cushion, and then start reevaluating again in 30 years as we get closer to that new deadline.
Click to expand...

Listen.. I understand you want to make an argument with me. but there is no argument. Yes..removing the cap.. would help.. as would many other things. HEck.. if the economy booms beyond projections.. and there is a flu that kills off the baby boomers.. those things can change the outlook as well.

I simply got tired of Kushinator being a bully. He attacked Moderate right for stating that removing the cap would not fix Social security.

And his own information stated it would only close the gap by 76%.
 
jaeger19 said:
Listen.. I understand you want to make an argument with me. but there is no argument. Yes..removing the cap.. would help.. as would many other things. HEck.. if the economy booms beyond projections.. and there is a flu that kills off the baby boomers.. those things can change the outlook as well.

I simply got tired of Kushinator being a bully. He attacked Moderate right for stating that removing the cap would not fix Social security.

And his own information stated it would only close the gap by 76%.
Click to expand...

Being a bully is the only way these guys think they can win an argument. So far it hasn't sunk in that it is not working.
 
Moderate Right said:
Being a bully is the only way these guys think they can win an argument. So far it hasn't sunk in that it is not working.
Click to expand...

Have you noticed that after the election.. there has not been as many liberals posting? I think their confidence in knowing what the people think and want is shaken.
 
jaeger19 said:
after the election.. there has not been as many liberals posting
Click to expand...

I've lost interest in this community. There's very little valid conservative thought — just a load of crap that keeps getting repeated. For a while, I thought it was worth my time to post refutations. I guess I've changed my mind.

>>I think their confidence in knowing what the people think and want is shaken.

I don't put much thought into either. What people think and want is up to them. I'm interested in the facts. I figure Frump won, first because Clinton was a lousy candidate, and also because there are a lot of working class whites who accept this garbage about liberals buying votes with social programs that just make Negroes dependent, blah, blah, blah.

"Hail the Frump! Hail victory!"

Nazi-Hail-Trump.jpg
 
mmi said:
I've lost interest in this community. There's very little valid conservative thought — just a load of crap that keeps getting repeated. For a while, I thought it was worth my time to post refutations. I guess I've changed my mind.

>>I think their confidence in knowing what the people think and want is shaken.

I don't put much thought into either. What people think and want is up to them. I'm interested in the facts. I figure Frump won, first because Clinton was a lousy candidate, and also because there are a lot of working class whites who accept this garbage about liberals buying votes with social programs that just make Negroes dependent, blah, blah, blah.

"Hail the Frump! Hail victory!"

View attachment 67210225
Click to expand...

Awww.. don't go away mad.. just go away.

The truth is.. there is more than enough valid conservative thought. I've managed to stymy you on every argument. And you have had to resort to racist remarks..

The fact is that you liberals lost.. because you assume that conservatives and conservative thought is :
working class whites who accept this garbage about liberals buying votes with social programs that just make Negroes dependent, blah, blah, blah.
Click to expand...

that's not what won in this election.

That fringe attitude among the GOP is what cost us two defeats by Obama.
 
jaeger19 said:
Awww.. don't go away mad.. just go away.

The truth is.. there is more than enough valid conservative thought. I've managed to stymy you on every argument. And you have had to resort to racist remarks..

The fact is that you liberals lost.. because you assume that conservatives and conservative thought is :

that's not what won in this election.

That fringe attitude among the GOP is what cost us two defeats by Obama.
Click to expand...

That's not a "fringe attitude" - I've seen the same attitude by many, perhaps most conservatives I've debated over the years on this site and others. Time and time and time again, conservatives use the argument that the Left just "buys votes with social programs".

In other words, that's part and parcel of the attitude of the Right...or haven't you noticed how eager many on the Right are to slash funding for social programs? Here's a clue: it ain't because of how much they cost. In 1981, Reagan's adviser Lee Atwater put it quite plainly:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

The above is proof positive that it HAS been about race for a long, long time. Have fun over the next four years...enjoy it while you can. Y'all got really, truly lucky this time...but your luck won't last. The demographics of America are shifting, and (short of actual ethnic cleansing) the change is unstoppable and irreversible.
 
jaeger19 said:
Listen.. I understand you want to make an argument with me. but there is no argument. Yes..removing the cap.. would help.. as would many other things. HEck.. if the economy booms beyond projections.. and there is a flu that kills off the baby boomers.. those things can change the outlook as well.

I simply got tired of Kushinator being a bully. He attacked Moderate right for stating that removing the cap would not fix Social security.

And his own information stated it would only close the gap by 76%.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing your having pointed out that it doesn't fix it 100%. I'm just saying that's a good enough fix for now.
 
jaeger19 said:
Awww.. don't go away mad.. just go away.
Click to expand...

Clever, and quite original.

>>I've managed to stymy you on every argument.

I really do pity you.

Btw, stymie is more widely accepted. There's even stimy, for those who like to use obscure spellings.

>>you have had to resort to racist remarks

Simply part of yer pathetic effort to distract from yer losing arguments. Similar to "he doesn't use the QUOTE function properly."

>>That fringe attitude among the GOP is what cost us two defeats by Obama.

The coloured boy was supported by enough working-class whites in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to easily win twice. Some of them couldn't tolerate Hellory and some were foolish enough to believe that Frump is anything but a lying asshole.

A GOP presidential candidate seems to able to garner about 60-62 million votes, while a Democrat can get a few million more. We need to better with those Rust Belt white voters beaten down by automation and globalisation. If we can't do anything for them, maybe we don't deserve to win. And it would help if we could nominate another superstar like Sambo the Kenyan commie homo witch doctor, currently at 56% in Gallup. Frump's climbed all the way up to 42, after being at 34 the week before the election.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
That's not a "fringe attitude" - I've seen the same attitude by many, perhaps most conservatives I've debated over the years on this site and others. Time and time and time again, conservatives use the argument that the Left just "buys votes with social programs".

In other words, that's part and parcel of the attitude of the Right...or haven't you noticed how eager many on the Right are to slash funding for social programs? Here's a clue: it ain't because of how much they cost. In 1981, Reagan's adviser Lee Atwater put it quite plainly:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

The above is proof positive that it HAS been about race for a long, long time. Have fun over the next four years...enjoy it while you can. Y'all got really, truly lucky this time...but your luck won't last. The demographics of America are shifting, and (short of actual ethnic cleansing) the change is unstoppable and irreversible.
Click to expand...

You have confused with the far Right.. with being a conservative.

But you do have a point about Reagan.. and it worked to sway the south to republicans. At in the last few years.. we have tried that strategy and its bitten us in the butt. Because while Reagan used it.. and then once getting the vote.. he turned away from it.. (because what was a right wing nut going to do.. vote democrat?)

What has happened recently is that we unleashed a tiger by the tail with the far right.. .and they learned what to do about it.. which is kill you in a primary fight. the fringe element has controlled the republican party because of its radicalism and willingness to stick it to long standing republicans in a primary fight.

But that's the weird thing of trump. He is a democrat wrapped in some far right clothes.. for the moment. He is an anomaly.. Either brilliant.. or a madman. Time will tell.


This had NOTHING to do "with luck"... not at all. and you thinking that is a HUGE HUGE mistake.

You seem to forget that Obama won quite easily. TWICE.

Hillary LOST rather badly. In areas that Obama had won years before. Easily won. NOW... are you really going to claim that what happened is that those voters that voted for Obama twice. A black fellow with a muslim sounding name... suddenly went all racist and xenophobic and voted for Trump based on race and religion?

That simply makes no logical sense. Something changed in this election.. and it was not that the right wing voted MORE republican.. they had voted republican against Obama.. its that those who voted Democrat years before.. either stayed home or voted republican.
 
Critter7r said:
I'm not arguing your having pointed out that it doesn't fix it 100%. I'm just saying that's a good enough fix for now.
Click to expand...

Which is something I agree with you on and have in many posts... So why point it out to me?
 
DA60 said:
Lol...good one.
Click to expand...

A good example of the insipid moronity that characterises many of the posts from the Right in this forum. I wanna spend my time reading this kindergarten crap? Nah.

jaeger19 said:
You have confused with the far Right.. with being a conservative.
Click to expand...

Conservatism is slowly dying in this country. The Frump phenomenon is an expression of the irrational death throes typically exhibited in the collapse of a political ideology.

>>But that's the weird thing of trump. He is a democrat wrapped in some far right clothes.

Not weird at all in my analysis. Conservatism can no longer win a national election.

>>He is an anomaly.. Either brilliant.. or a madman.

A lying, thieving SOB. What could be more clear?

>>You seem to forget that Obama won quite easily. TWICE. Hillary LOST rather badly. In areas that Obama had won years before. Easily won.

In part because he was a much stronger candidate.

>>those voters that voted for Obama twice … suddenly went all racist and xenophobic and voted for Trump based on race and religion?

No one's suggesting "all racist and xenophobic" and I'd say religion had nothing to do with it. I figure the voters who put The Pig over the top around the Great Lakes don't really have anything against Negroes and wetbacks — they just buy into the RW crap about liiiiiiibrul policies that favour those groups.

>>those who voted Democrat years before.. either stayed home or voted republican.

A rather small percentage did — that's all it took. And some who often don't vote came out for the white power candidate.

The GOP will, if its legislative and administrative efforts are successful, overstimulate the economy, leading to a surge and a collapse. Restrictions on immigration and trade will make things worse. Cuts in social programs will push millions back into poverty. Some politicians know how to govern and some don't. The people without much to begin with will suffer.
 
Last edited:
mmi said:
A good example of the insipid moronity that characterises many of the posts from the Right in this forum. I wanna spend my time reading this kindergarten crap? Nah.



Conservatism is slowly dying in this country. The Frump phenomenon is an expression of the irrational death throes typically exhibited in the collapse of a political ideology.

.
Click to expand...

Yes.. I am sure you think so.. I am also quite sure that you absolutely KNEW that Hillary would win the election and the republican party was going to be "irrelevant".. :mrgreen:
So long....
:2wave:
 
jaeger19 said:
I am sure you think so
Click to expand...

Gallup has liberals and moderates at 59% with conservatives at 37.

>>you absolutely KNEW that Hillary would win the election

I absolutely THOUGHT she would. So did Frump.

>>and the republican party was going to be "irrelevant"

Nah, just increasingly marginalised. The new administration will provide more evidence of this.
>>So long.... :2wave:

GFY. I said I'd lost interest, not that I was leaving. I'm probably too stupid to realise that I should have left a long time ago. Why argue with idiots?
 
jaeger19 said:
You have confused with the far Right.. with being a conservative.

But you do have a point about Reagan.. and it worked to sway the south to republicans. At in the last few years.. we have tried that strategy and its bitten us in the butt. Because while Reagan used it.. and then once getting the vote.. he turned away from it.. (because what was a right wing nut going to do.. vote democrat?)

What has happened recently is that we unleashed a tiger by the tail with the far right.. .and they learned what to do about it.. which is kill you in a primary fight. the fringe element has controlled the republican party because of its radicalism and willingness to stick it to long standing republicans in a primary fight.

But that's the weird thing of trump. He is a democrat wrapped in some far right clothes.. for the moment. He is an anomaly.. Either brilliant.. or a madman. Time will tell.


This had NOTHING to do "with luck"... not at all. and you thinking that is a HUGE HUGE mistake.

You seem to forget that Obama won quite easily. TWICE.

Hillary LOST rather badly. In areas that Obama had won years before. Easily won. NOW... are you really going to claim that what happened is that those voters that voted for Obama twice. A black fellow with a muslim sounding name... suddenly went all racist and xenophobic and voted for Trump based on race and religion?

That simply makes no logical sense. Something changed in this election.. and it was not that the right wing voted MORE republican.. they had voted republican against Obama.. its that those who voted Democrat years before.. either stayed home or voted republican.
Click to expand...

Sssssssssssh. Don't explain the truth to them. They might figure it out.
 
Moderate Right said:
Sssssssssssh. Don't explain the truth to them. They might figure it out.
Click to expand...

The people who voted for Trump largely did so because they were against the establishment. Unfortunately, the people Trump is stocking his cabinet with are all establishment folks. So how is he going to be anti-establishment while also being establishment? The only way is if he goes to war with the Republican Party...which is entirely possible. Trump loves to fight and loves to fire people. I doubt most, if any, of his top cabinet and adviser picks last one year, let alone four.

Before long, we may see Trump stock his cabinet with liberals because Conservative policy doesn't ever deliver on its promises, and that betrayal will turn people against Trump. But Trump wants to be liked so badly that he could turn on a dime and become the liberal you all thought Hillary would be.
 
mmi said:
GFY. I said I'd lost interest, not that I was leaving. I'm probably too stupid to realise that I should have left a long time ago. Why argue with idiots?
Click to expand...

Oh well.. I enjoy arguing with idiots ... so I guess "GLAD TO HAVE YOU BACK".. :2wave:
 
Incisor said:
The people who voted for Trump largely did so because they were against the establishment. Unfortunately, the people Trump is stocking his cabinet with are all establishment folks. So how is he going to be anti-establishment while also being establishment? The only way is if he goes to war with the Republican Party...which is entirely possible. Trump loves to fight and loves to fire people. I doubt most, if any, of his top cabinet and adviser picks last one year, let alone four.

Before long, we may see Trump stock his cabinet with liberals because Conservative policy doesn't ever deliver on its promises, and that betrayal will turn people against Trump. But Trump wants to be liked so badly that he could turn on a dime and become the liberal you all thought Hillary would be.
Click to expand...

I don't even know where to begin in disecting all of that. I don't have that much time.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Well, there aren't many circumstances in which it's a good idea for the government to remove more dollars from the economy than it spends in. Certainly not in the U.S., where we run trade deficits that almost every other country takes advantage of.
Click to expand...

Dollars are not removed dollars from the economy when the gment pays down the debt. The dollars go from the gment's pocket to the bondholders pocket. The bond is torn up by the gment as being paid, and the former bondholder, now cash rich, plows the money back into the economy in some way. Even by putting it in a cash account with a bank, he plows the money back into the economy, because the back takes his cash deposit and lends it to businesses to grow and expand, which boosts the economy. He does not keep it in his pocket and take it out of circulation.
 
Bobbaker said:
Dollars are not removed dollars from the economy when the gment pays down the debt. The dollars go from the gment's pocket to the bondholders pocket. The bond is torn up by the gment as being paid, and the former bondholder, now cash rich, plows the money back into the economy in some way. Even by putting it in a cash account with a bank, he plows the money back into the economy, because the back takes his cash deposit and lends it to businesses to grow and expand, which boosts the economy. He does not keep it in his pocket and take it out of circulation.
Click to expand...

Unless the gov't creates more bonds to pay off bond in question, the gov't must necessarily remove the money from the economy in the form of taxes in order to pay it back. And there's about a 35% chance that it'll get paid to an entity outside the US.

this is where conservatives talk out of both sides of their mouths. They want the debt paid off, but they want lower corporate taxes and lower taxes on the wealthy. We can't do both without deficit spending. But they don't want that either.
 
Critter7r said:
Unless the gov't creates more bonds to pay off bond in question, the gov't must necessarily remove the money from the economy in the form of taxes in order to pay it back. And there's about a 35% chance that it'll get paid to an entity outside the US.
Click to expand...

They can use the dollars they collect to pay US entities exclusively, and rollover foreign debt with new bonds.

There is sufficient CURRENCY, both digital and physical, in the continental US, to keep the economy humming away.

Anyway, the more taxes they collect, the higher must be consumption and income. The system will take care of itself.

Critter7r said:
this is where conservatives talk out of both sides of their mouths. They want the debt paid off, but they want lower corporate taxes and lower taxes on the wealthy. We can't do both without deficit spending. But they don't want that either.
Click to expand...

They have no integrity. Most american politicians don't have any integrity. Donald Trump is mild by the standards of other lifetime congressmen and senators.

They have no integrity because it has been PROVEN that cutting taxes on the wealthy does not lead to reinvestment in the economy, new jobs, new/increased income, new consumption, and thus higher income and consumption taxes to the gment, repaying the income that was initially lost when taxes on the wealthy were cut.

There is a balance beyond which you raise taxes and economic activity suffers. We are at or near that balance. Taxes can probably be raised a bit further. No problem. There are alot of tax breaks for american industry already. They have a cushy life - rich individuals are not a concern as its the corporations that create jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom