View Poll Results: Who Do You Trust To Reduce the Deficit and Solve the Debt Crises?

Voters
115. You may not vote on this poll
  • Both Parties Seem Trustworthy

    0 0%
  • I Trust the Democrats

    16 13.91%
  • I Trust the Republicans

    49 42.61%
  • Neither Party can be Trusted

    50 43.48%
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 91

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

  1. #31
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    1. Republicans are the only ones to have voted on either Tax Reform or structural reform of the entitlements. See: House 2012 Budget.
    Many of the Republicans who are on board with tax reform are only supportive with the caveat that such reform not be allowed to generate one dollar in additional revenue...thus defeating the whole purpose of it, as it relates to the deficit.

    2. Republicans have done good work in the states doing the same. See: Indiana's HSA's for public workers and Medicaid recipients
    I don't disagree; there have been lots of good Republican-backed health care plans in the states (the ACA was modeled on one). But the NATIONAL party has failed to embrace any good cost control mechanisms. Unfortunately, most of their proposed solutions involve reining in costs by cutting benefits, kicking people off the programs, or allowing insurers to continue discriminating on the basis of preexisting conditions. Right now the best cost-control mechanism we have for health care is the ACA...which was opposed by every single Republican in Congress, with the cost control measures generating the staunchest opposition of all.

    3. The ACA only "reduces the deficit" if you think you can spend the same $500 Billion twice, that unemployment is currently at 7.5%, growth is currently at 4%, and the Congress will not pass the doc fix bill. CBO said as long as you collect 10 years of taxes and only pay out 6 years of benefits, and you do the above mentioned things, you can get it to not raise the deficit.
    I responded to this in the other thread...none of these points are correct.

    4. No, the "short term" increases in discretionary spending (which rose quickly under Bush and rose much much faster under Obama) have merely established a "new baseline." nowhere in his budgets has Obama called for reducing the size of the federal government back down to 19-20% of GDP
    Recession-related spending naturally causes the deficit to explode; the tax base shrinks, unemployment and social security payments grow, various one-shot measures like stimulus bills and TARP are enacted, etc. None of these things continue on their own.

    5. Democrats have indeed been the more profligate spenders - compare the budgets that came out after they took the House to those before hand.
    Were the economic conditions the same in both situations? I'm less interested in the deficit over the period of a few years during a recession, than I am in the long-term structural deficit facing the country. Moreover, let's look at the bigger picture.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #32
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,596

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

    I actually trust both parties to do whatever is most self serving, whatever makes their party look the best, to play political games, to do whatever it takes to get and keep power, to do their best to please the lobbyists and their monied interests, and to screw the public.

    I'm just full of trust.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  3. #33
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

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

    Trusting either party would probably be overstating it, but I certainly trust the Democrats more than the Republicans on the deficit. The Democrats are open to both spending cuts and revenue increases. The Republicans are only open to half of the solution- spending cuts. We absolutely need both to fix this thing, so the Democrats are clearly ahead of the Republicans on fiscal responsibility at the moment.

  4. #34
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

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

    The partisan polarity and the behaviors it compels political agents to perform destroys the civic virtue those agents need to be trustworthy.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  5. #35
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

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

    In the US I would suggest neither party can be trusted on their own.

    What has appeared to work best has been a democratic president and a republican congress. A democratic congress and republican president has done poorly, a republican president and republican congress has done poorly, and a democratic pres and democratic congress has not done well. Of course general economic conditions benifited some more then others, but the combination that controlled spending the best has been the Dem president and Republican congress
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  6. #36
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,092

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

    Since the political system basically excludes more than the two tradition parties, then I would have to stick with the Democrats. This is solely due to the fact that the deficit and debt was mostly created by Republicans and they have shown a total lack of economic sense for 30+ years.
    PeteEU

  7. #37
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Many of the Republicans who are on board with tax reform are only supportive with the caveat that such reform not be allowed to generate one dollar in additional revenue...thus defeating the whole purpose of it, as it relates to the deficit.
    this is wildly incorrect. what they argue is that we will not raise effective tax rates by a single dollar. the effects of tax reform, however, will be amazingly pro-growth. Currently we waste $431 Billion a year in tax compliance - tax code simplification shifts much of this funding back into production and growth. Faster growth makes for rising revenues, at the same time that it produces jobs, increased salaries, and generally pulls people off of the government safety net. So Effective Tax Rate Neutral Tax Reform actually attacks the deficit from both sides; by increasing revenues and reducing costs.

    I don't disagree; there have been lots of good Republican-backed health care plans in the states (the ACA was modeled on one). But the NATIONAL party has failed to embrace any good cost control mechanisms
    there you are (again) wildly incorrect. the House 2012 (which again, all but 4 Republicans in the House voted for) produced precisely such a plan. You seem to have "good" confused with "increasing the power of government".

    Medicare’s chief actuary: Paul Ryan’s plan could control health-care costs better than ObamaCare

    And that is correct. Introducing a market element to the healthcare market has had salutary effects not only elsewhere in healthcare, but in Medicare. That's critical - because of their size, Medicaid and Medicare drive costs in the healthcare market. For example; while the cost per person in the "private market" rose rapidly, and the cost per enrollee in Medicare did the same, the effects on Prescription Drug Coverage (which was covered by Part D, which instituted patient choice) averaged a rise of only 1.2%!.



    That's huge - and it was part of why that program came in at 41% below projections, whereas Obamacare is already bending the cost curve up. At least, according to the CMS Actuary

    which is precisely what we should expect. because that Republican Model you mention that the ACA is built on? well, it's failing. Health care costs there are the highest in the country, they are facing a critical shortage of doctors,and have had waiting times averaging 44 days for a primary physician imposed. Emergency room visits have spiked as people who are desperate for medical attention but can't get it seek out the one venue left to them for somewhat quick care.

    Unfortunately, most of their proposed solutions involve reining in costs by cutting benefits, kicking people off the programs, or allowing insurers to continue discriminating on the basis of preexisting conditions. Right now the best cost-control mechanism we have for health care is the ACA
    why do you continue to ignore that the ACA is built upon fairy-tale numbers that no sane man believes will come to pass. there is no Magic Money Fairy that allows you to spend the same money twice. Order the CBO to account for Unicorns and Pixies, and they will account for Unicorns and Pixies.

    fortunately; others are not so bound: Former CBO Director: Obamacare Will Bankrupt US

    as for the pre-existing conditions; many of us are fine setting up high-risk pools for those that need it already; but banning an insurer from altering costs due to a preexisting condition merely destroys it's ability to operate as insurance. the incentive for the individual becomes to avoid the costs of health insurance until an injury or disease has already struck. prices quickly spiral out of control.

    as for cutting benefits - Republicans plan put off the necessary reductions in medicare expenditures as long as possible. They gave people time to plan. Obamacare begins to cut Medicare in 2014 - current seniors are not exempt.

    which was opposed by every single Republican in Congress, with the cost control measures generating the staunchest opposition of all.
    which is excellent, given that government-imposed rationing is precisely the kind of cost controls we want to avoid. I'll admit, I was worried at first that the Democrats would go for something juuuuust enough over the line to tempt in a Snowe or some other character so they could claim "bipartisanship"; but it seems they were only interested in getting the most liberal law that could pass the Democratic Party.

    I responded to this in the other thread...none of these points are correct.
    i have never seen you "address" them and they are indeed correct.

    HHS Secretary Sebelius Admits Double Counting in Obamacare

    CBO: To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.

    CBO Confirms That Without Accounting Gimmicks, Obamacare Adds to Deficits

    Recession-related spending naturally causes the deficit to explode; the tax base shrinks, unemployment and social security payments grow, various one-shot measures like stimulus bills and TARP are enacted, etc. None of these things continue on their own.
    recession does not necessitate that the deficit explode at all. as America tightens it's belt, government can tighten it's belt as well.

    Were the economic conditions the same in both situations? I'm less interested in the deficit over the period of a few years during a recession
    Democrats took over the Congress in 2006. we were not in a recession.

    than I am in the long-term structural deficit facing the country.
    then you of all people should be worried about the long term structural deficits increase under Obama. EVERY SINGLE DEFICIT called for in his budget was larger than Bush's largest deficit.



    Moreover, let's look at the bigger picture.
    cute. it's almost as if you didn't know that spending comes (as per the Constitution) from the House of Representatives.

    and so the truth is a bit more mixed:

    Last edited by cpwill; 07-21-11 at 08:19 AM.

  8. #38
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    this is wildly incorrect. what they argue is that we will not raise effective tax rates by a single dollar. the effects of tax reform, however, will be amazingly pro-growth. Currently we waste $431 Billion a year in tax compliance - tax code simplification shifts much of this funding back into production and growth. Faster growth makes for rising revenues, at the same time that it produces jobs, increased salaries, and generally pulls people off of the government safety net. So Effective Tax Rate Neutral Tax Reform actually attacks the deficit from both sides; by increasing revenues and reducing costs.
    I completely agree with your assessment of the savings from it; the problem is those politicians who insist that any increase in revenue as a result of tax reform must have somehow been a "tax increase." And the fact that it's impossible to separate out the exact revenue impact from the actual changes to the tax code, compared to the revenue impact from improved efficiency/compliance.

    there you are (again) wildly incorrect. the House 2012 (which again, all but 4 Republicans in the House voted for) produced precisely such a plan. You seem to have "good" confused with "increasing the power of government".

    Medicare’s chief actuary: Paul Ryan’s plan could control health-care costs better than ObamaCare
    Paul Ryan's plan "controls" costs by shifting them from the federal government to individual citizens (or their employers). It does nothing to actually address the problem, which is rising health care costs. If it reduces the federal debt while increasing household debt, then the nation isn't really any better off.

    And that is correct. Introducing a market element to the healthcare market has had salutary effects not only elsewhere in healthcare, but in Medicare. That's critical - because of their size, Medicaid and Medicare drive costs in the healthcare market. For example; while the cost per person in the "private market" rose rapidly, and the cost per enrollee in Medicare did the same, the effects on Prescription Drug Coverage (which was covered by Part D, which instituted patient choice) averaged a rise of only 1.2%!.
    I'm not opposed to market elements in health care; I support the high-deductible plans that are a part of the ACA exchanges, for example.

    As for Medicare Part D...a large part of the reason that costs have risen very slowly is because of a (relative) lack of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry in recent years. The patents have been expiring on blockbuster drugs, without being replaced at the same rate by new blockbuster drugs. While this isn't the fault of Medicare Part D, it's hardly a cause for celebration.

    which is precisely what we should expect. because that Republican Model you mention that the ACA is built on? well, it's failing. Health care costs there are the highest in the country, they are facing a critical shortage of doctors,and have had waiting times averaging 44 days for a primary physician imposed.
    And what were the statistics in Massachusetts PRIOR to health care reform? Did you consider that this may have been a response to those factors, rather than a result?
    In any case, if we're going to look at the results of health care systems...let's look abroad, to a little place called Every Other Developed Country In The World, where universal health care means that health care costs HALF (or less) per capita what it costs here, produces the same long lifespans and low infant mortality rates, and covers everyone.

    Emergency room visits have spiked as people who are desperate for medical attention but can't get it seek out the one venue left to them for somewhat quick care.
    How is that attributable to health care reform?

    why do you continue to ignore that the ACA is built upon fairy-tale numbers that no sane man believes will come to pass. there is no Magic Money Fairy that allows you to spend the same money twice.
    Addressed here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...outlook-3.html

    as for the pre-existing conditions; many of us are fine setting up high-risk pools for those that need it already; but banning an insurer from altering costs due to a preexisting condition merely destroys it's ability to operate as insurance.
    High-risk pools defeat the whole purpose if they price everyone out of the market. As for destroying their ability to operate as an insurance, we already regulate how insurers can judge people. For example, should insurers be able to discriminate based on your race? I think most of us would agree that that's not a good idea, regardless of any legitimate actuarial statistics showing that it is a good predictor of filing insurance claims. Same thing here...we need not allow insurers to discriminate based on preexisting conditions just because they can.

    the incentive for the individual becomes to avoid the costs of health insurance until an injury or disease has already struck. prices quickly spiral out of control.
    Yep, hence the individual mandate.

    as for cutting benefits - Republicans plan put off the necessary reductions in medicare expenditures as long as possible. They gave people time to plan. Obamacare begins to cut Medicare in 2014 - current seniors are not exempt.
    There is plenty of room for cuts in Medicare (and any serious deficit reduction plan will need to include them). The question is whether that comes in the form of higher costs to seniors, or in the form of cost control.

    which is excellent, given that government-imposed rationing is precisely the kind of cost controls we want to avoid.
    Why? We already have market-imposed rationing based on ability to pay.

    i have never seen you "address" them and they are indeed correct.
    Addressed here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...outlook-3.html

    recession does not necessitate that the deficit explode at all. as America tightens it's belt, government can tighten it's belt as well.
    It can, but it shouldn't. On the contrary, the time for the government to tighten its belt is during a boom.

    Democrats took over the Congress in 2006. we were not in a recession.

    then you of all people should be worried about the long term structural deficits increase under Obama. EVERY SINGLE DEFICIT called for in his budget was larger than Bush's largest deficit.





    cute. it's almost as if you didn't know that spending comes (as per the Constitution) from the House of Representatives.

    and so the truth is a bit more mixed:

    None of this is really relevant anyway, unless one assumes that the current Congress/administration is responsible for no more or less than the deficits of the current Congress/administration. That's essentially true for discretionary spending, but it's not at all true for entitlements or tax policy. For example, the Bush Tax Cuts and Medicare Part D were entirely unfunded by the Congress/President who passed them, meaning that they still are adding to the deficit to this day. Whereas the Affordable Care Act was completely paid for, and will eventually reduce the deficit on a continuous basis just as the Bush Tax Cuts and Medicare Part D add to it.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #39
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    I really don't trust either side
    Correct - I don't think many do trust either side as they have to earn it and they sure as hell haven't earned trust in my lifetime.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  10. #40
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

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

    Neither party. If I had any say I'd take a third-party arbiter, an individual or a group with will go over our budget and our tax code with a fine tooth comb and take out all the inefficiency and BS.

    I gotta say though, the Gang of Six plan seems to be our best bet right now. Seems pretty fair and substantial to me. It's not gonna be ready by August 2 though.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 07-21-11 at 11:31 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •