• 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!

Who do you trust to control the Deficit and solve our Debt Crises?

Who Do You Trust To Reduce the Deficit and Solve the Debt Crises?

  • Both Parties Seem Trustworthy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    61
I'd trust the conservatives more to solve the so-called debt crisis , the democrats less.
Bur the cons ,in their "anti-tax" sickness, will wreck our nation in doing so....particularly the tea baggers ...what do they know about "economy" ???
This problem is for the highly intelligent to solve, not a bunch of stupid politicians...
I vote "other", or "none of the above".
 
Last edited:
Neither parties. The deems won't budge on spending and the GOP also won't budge on taxes. They need to compromise. They need to show their worth. They need to show to the US citizens that yes, they can be trusted to rule the country. That trust is now broken
Proud.............. , you and I seem to have a very similar political philosophy.
One of many things that burns me about our nation is the media "personalities" who lie so.....both radio and TV....and we are barraged with this.
So many Republicans were stupid enough to sign a document that they would never raise taxes....but it was OK to lower taxes....they do not represent their constituents, but only themselves...
 
Considering Democrats havent released a budget in almost 3 YEARS..........and are unable to cut a cent of government spending, including Cowboy Poetry Contests........

.........The Tea Party remains our only hope of a balanced budget.........
.
.
.
.

And these fools will wreck our nation in doing so....o'er the backs of the poor.....then they will strike, riot, and do great harm..
Why ?
 
I don't trust any politician. They exist to be re-elected. In order to fix the problem, they're going to have to do some really, really, really unpopular things, therefore they will never do them. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle they come from, doing what needs to be done is going to require political suicide. That's why the problem will never be fixed by anyone we send to Washington.
Agree....but I think we may have a problem, mind you "I think", not I know....
Sadly, one cannot trust either side.
We do need reform in the political process....elections should should never be bought and sold..
 
I don't TRUST either.

Republicans ****ed it up badly when they had the control of the purse strings from 2000 to 2006.

Democrats have ****ed it up even worse since they've had the purse strings from 2006 to 2010.

And since 2010 the Republicans and Democrats are splitting the effective purse strings and haven't been able to do anything but token actions.

I can't trust either of the ****ers, but at least one of them is actually significantly and substantially about dealing with the incredibly irresponsable and spiraling out of control spending issues we have rather than kicking the can down the road, so I am more apt to give them a shot. That said, "trust" is hardly the word I'd use for them.
 
I don't TRUST either.

Republicans ****ed it up badly when they had the control of the purse strings from 2000 to 2006.

Democrats have ****ed it up even worse since they've had the purse strings from 2006 to 2010.

And since 2010 the Republicans and Democrats are splitting the effective purse strings and haven't been able to do anything but token actions.

I can't trust either of the ****ers, but at least one of them is actually significantly and substantially about dealing with the incredibly irresponsable and spiraling out of control spending issues we have rather than kicking the can down the road, so I am more apt to give them a shot. That said, "trust" is hardly the word I'd use for them.

Which is why I told the GOP hucksters calling me for donations to "beat Obama" that they have to earn my money and I won't be contributing until they show they can be trusted to do what's right for the people they represent and not for themselves.
 
Agree....but I think we may have a problem, mind you "I think", not I know....
Sadly, one cannot trust either side.
We do need reform in the political process....elections should should never be bought and sold..

Unfortunately, we've largely put the election process in the hands of those who directly benefit from it and simply will never allow it to change significantly.
 
I imagine it had something to do with the notion that the cuts we knew of were gimmicks, and the rest were unspecified.

I tell you what, i promise 8 trillion in tax increases.... to take place at some point in the future... under a general program.... of stuff that will happen..... after a commission makes it's report and looks at it and kicks it to a sub-committee which will kick it to another commission before making their non-binding report to the full committee......

in return for which, you agree to privatize Medicare and Social Security. tomorrow.



what? you're going to walk away from 8 trillion in increased revenue?


gosh, kandahar just won't take "yes" for an answer. what an intransgient he is.

This analogy doesn't hold up because the Democrats aren't asking for immediate tax hikes. To the best knowledge, that possibility was never even in the cards.
Whereas many of the spending cuts ARE immediate (or near-immediate). Even the ones that aren't were at least binding.
 
I voted that neither party can be trusted. Politicians, in general, are a very untrustworthy bunch and are the dregs on mankind in my opinion.

But, all that being said, God forbid the power goes to the republicans. Not that the democrats could probably do any better but the odds are surely in their favor, in my opinion, because any and everything the GOP has touched in the last 15 years has turned in a smelly pile of stinking ****. They should not even be allowed to park cars or walk dogs.
 
This analogy doesn't hold up because the Democrats aren't asking for immediate tax hikes. To the best knowledge, that possibility was never even in the cards.
Whereas many of the spending cuts ARE immediate (or near-immediate). Even the ones that aren't were at least binding.

the spending cuts have also proven ephemeral. not maintaining surge levels in Afghanistan for 10 years is not a "spending cut". neither is reductions in interest payments resulting from increased taxes. Mutterings about "seeking efficiencies" does not count as a "spending cut", no matter what number you put on it.
 
Obama was on CNN this afternoon saying that Congress has offered to allow him to increase the debt ceiling until after the election.

In other words, they want to point fingers at Obama and say, while campaigning, that they didn't support raising the debt ceiling, then come back and vote to raise the debt ceiling. Of course, they will claim spending cuts, but those will be, in cpwill's word, "ephemeral".

That's a good word, ephemeral, very descriptive of the sorts of spending cuts that Congress is considering, much like their detailed lists of just what is to be cut.
 
I voted that neither party can be trusted. Politicians, in general, are a very untrustworthy bunch and are the dregs on mankind in my opinion.

But, all that being said, God forbid the power goes to the republicans. Not that the democrats could probably do any better but the odds are surely in their favor, in my opinion, because any and everything the GOP has touched in the last 15 years has turned in a smelly pile of stinking ****. They should not even be allowed to park cars or walk dogs.

Cuz democrats taking the debt from 9 trillion to 14.5 trillion since 2007...and not even so much as passing an annual operating budget...that was absolutely BRILLIANT management by democrats. Unemployment at a steady state 9+% with real unemployment well over 20%...thats just freqin AWESOME.
 
Neither.

The Republican's arrogance got us into this mess, and it won't get us out of this mess.

The Democrat's arrogance will stop them from compromising.

But at the last minute the Democrats, who are not arrogant enough to allow the country to default will sign whatever the Republicans put in-front of them at the last minute, no matter how stupid it is. Then the Republicans will run around screaming how they solved all our problems.

Ultimately we will end up with an awful compromise. The wealthy will continue to not be taxed enough. Their wealth will continue to grow, and, when the middle and lower class no longer hold enough wealth to pay the bills we will be in this mess all over again.

We need a revolution. Temporary communism could even out the wealth, then temporary fascism could get our economy going again, after that we can revert back to democracy. As long as we get rid of the communist government fast our infrastructure will not be destroyed, and if we get rid of the fascist government after they get the economy going again we will not destroy ourselves with over-aggression.
 
That's a good word, ephemeral, very descriptive of the sorts of spending cuts that Congress is considering, much like their detailed lists of just what is to be cut.

Yes good woody sort of word ephemeral... EFFF... EMMM... ARILLLLLL. Yes yes... nice and woody. Not tinny, no. Woody ...
 
not maintaining surge levels in Afghanistan for 10 years is not a "spending cut".

I'm not sure how (if at all) the CBO tries to measure the costs of wars. It's difficult because presidents have a tendency to suddenly change their minds when it's time to act. I would agree that the surge in Afghanistan was (at least in theory) a short-term measure that should be discontinued anyway. But in practice, it may turn out to be more than that, as putting more troops into Afghanistan reduces the likelihood that we'll withdraw them soon. So I dunno, I can see some justification for including that as a spending cut if it's eliminated. It just depends how you measure the baseline spending.

But really we should eliminate 100% of the spending for the war in Afghanistan, so it's a moot point.

neither is reductions in interest payments resulting from increased taxes.

I strongly disagree with this. Interest payments are absolutely a component of our long-term budgetary problems. Reducing the long-term deficit will reduce our interest payments, and therefore reduce spending in the long term. This is one of the reasons why I think it's so dangerous for us to have a debt ceiling in the first place...if the opposition (either next week or in a future debt ceiling debate) pushes it to the brink and is then unable to walk it back and make a deal to raise it, it will negatively impact our credit rating. A 1% increase in our interest rate would lead to an extra trillion dollars in interest payments (and therefore in government spending).

Frankly I don't see how anyone could see it any other way. Why would reductions in interest payments from borrowing less not be a legitimate spending cut? :confused:

Mutterings about "seeking efficiencies" does not count as a "spending cut", no matter what number you put on it.

It depends what those efficiencies are, how important they are to the overall budget, and whether or not they're binding. So in my opinion the ACA would count as spending reductions from improving efficiency, whereas eliminating the occasional poster-child pork project or agriculture subsidy does not.
 
Last edited:
Because they are only the ones mature and responsible enough to correct the wrong course where this nation is heading. This happens every time after the Dems. leave office, they have to put everything back in order.
 
I found this infographic today in the New York Times...it fits this thread pretty well:
24editorial_graph2-popup.gif


Bush's policies increased the deficit by $5.07 trillion. Obama's policies have increased it by $1.44 trillion. And lest anyone think this is simply because Bush had more time to do his damage, these figures include Obama's costs projected out over an equal time frame.

And if you take out the specific items that are directly attributable to the recession and therefore short-term, Obama has barely increased the deficit at all: The only other items on his deficit list are non-defense discretionary spending ($278 billion), health care reform ($152 billion), and defense (savings of $126 billion)...for a total of $304 billion. And even THAT may be an exaggeration, since one of the goals of health care reform is to REDUCE the deficit in the long-term, and the CBO indicated that it will do just that.

Obama has not been a profligate spender...certainly FAR less than his predecessor was.
 
Last edited:
How could you morons trust republicans with this? They cant even agree with themselves. Kiss all your retirement benefits goodbye if they ever get power again. America is doomed if people are this stupid.


I swear to god I will piss on the flag and take a 1 way ticket to canada if a republican gets elected president anytime soon do you guys even watch the news? I mean real newd, not fox. The gop is insane, even REAL republicans are saying this. Your more trustworthy of the people who put us in ythis mess in the first place? Your all ****ing stupid. God save america.
 
Last edited:
How could you morons trust republicans with this? They cant even agree with themselves. Kiss all your retirement benefits goodbye if they ever get power again. America is doomed if people are this stupid.

Not agreeing with their own group is a GOOD thing... it means some in the GOP are thinking of something OTHER than their own asses and re-election. People are stupid when they blindly follow the talking points of partisans and propoganda.
 
Back
Top Bottom