• 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 highly doubt someone like Herman Cain would do that...

And democrats have had their goods and bads with financial responsibility... and Obama is not one of the good ones.

Herman Cain...:rofl
 
I trust only a fearful government. Both parties blow chunks. The only reason the republicans are taking a tough stance on deficit reduction (forget about touching the debt...these ****heads think 110 billion dollars is a significant amount when you have an annual deficit of 1.5 trillion) is that they know the tea party voters tossed out several republicans and will likely do it again in 2012. The only reason Obama is even considering cuts is because he wants to get re-elected. And where the **** is the Senate in all of this? I know where budgets originate, but the long term solution requires both the house and senate.

If 'the people' demonstrate they will vote those worthless bastards out, they will act...both sides. Not because they are driven to make positive change but because they want to preserve their party power.
 
With all of the stupid chest-thumping, grandstanding, blaming, and partisan hack accusations, I doubt either party will actually do anything but throw a grain of sand on the beach.

I tend to agree.
 
wait a minute. Republicans are the only ones proposing structural reforms.... but Democrats are the ones that are more serious about long term solvency?

Well...the Democrats are more supportive of reforming our tax code (although I will grant that there is some bipartisan support, albeit with too many caveats from the Republican side). They're also the only ones with serious ideas on health care reform; the Affordable Care Act was a good start, but I think it alone will be insufficient for reining in costs. Neither party seems serious about cutting defense spending, although doing so is more of a liberal idea than a conservative idea. Social security is the only one of the four where I would probably give the edge to the Republicans.

i mean, I voted "neither", but that's utter crap. Democrats have no desire whatsoever to do anything but increase spending dramatically in the next few years.

Most of the spending increases in the past few years have been either 1) recession-related and therefore short-term, 2) standard discretionary spending bumps that have always occurred and which don't pose a fiscal threat, and 3) start-up costs for the Affordable Care Act, which the CBO says will reduce the deficit in the long-term.

The Democrats have been far from profligate spenders under the circumstances. Obama in particular has been much more fiscally responsible than the congressional Republican leadership, and certainly moreso than Bush ever was.
 
Last edited:
Well...the Democrats are more supportive of reforming our tax code (although I will grant that there is some bipartisan support, albeit with too many caveats from the Republican side). They're also the only ones with serious ideas on health care reform; the Affordable Care Act was a good start, but I think it alone will be insufficient for reining in costs. Neither party seems serious about cutting defense spending, although doing so is more of a liberal idea than a conservative idea. Social security is the only one of the four where I would probably give the edge to the Republicans.



Most of the spending increases in the past few years have been either 1) recession-related and therefore short-term, 2) standard discretionary spending bumps that have always occurred and which don't pose a fiscal threat, and 3) start-up costs for the Affordable Care Act, which the CBO says will reduce the deficit in the long-term.

The Democrats have been far from profligate spenders under the circumstances. Obama in particular has been much more fiscally responsible than the congressional Republican leadership, and certainly moreso than Bush ever was.


:lamo, brother, you are out of your mind.

1. Republicans are the only ones to have voted on either Tax Reform or structural reform of the entitlements. See: House 2012 Budget.
2. Republicans have done good work in the states doing the same. See: Indiana's HSA's for public workers and Medicaid recipients
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. since that is in no way "the long term" and since none of those things are true (you cannot spend the same money twice), the ACA is a budget buster. Attempting to implement it will push us over the edge of our ability to borrow. Given consistent high opposition to Obamacare, and consistent high support for it's repeal, I'm thinking we're going to choose to get rid of it instead.
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
5. Democrats have indeed been the more profligate spenders - compare the budgets that came out after they took the House to those before hand.


bush_deficit_vs_obama_deficit_in_pictures_2.jpg


and that's with exceedingly rosy assumptions. short term my buttocks.
 
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.
US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg
 
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.
 
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.
 
The partisan polarity and the behaviors it compels political agents to perform destroys the civic virtue those agents need to be trustworthy.
 
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
 
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.
 
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%!.

capretta_piece_graphic.jpg


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.

cid_image001_gif@01CAA448-.jpg


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:

US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_Color_Coded_Congress_Control_and_Presidents_Highlighted.png
 
Last edited:
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? :confused:

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/104507-do-you-see-our-long-term-budget-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/104507-do-you-see-our-long-term-budget-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.

cid_image001_gif@01CAA448-.jpg




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:

US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_Color_Coded_Congress_Control_and_Presidents_Highlighted.png

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.
 
I really don't trust either side :shrug:

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.
 
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:
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.

Nor will it ever win enough support among House Republicans, who are in no mood to compromise on anything.
 
Nor will it ever win enough support among House Republicans, who are in no mood to compromise on anything.

Yeah, hard to say what those guys are gonna do by August 2. Cut Cap and Balance seems to me to be their pet project at this point, but that isn't gonna pass the Senate.
 
Yeah, hard to say what those guys are gonna do by August 2. Cut Cap and Balance seems to me to be their pet project at this point, but that isn't gonna pass the Senate.

I think they'll end up going with McConnell's "back up plan." Or they'll push the nation into default. One of the two.

It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the fact that the Republican Party - which is ostensibly committed to smaller government and a balanced budget - would pass up the $3 trillion in spending cuts which Obama offered them in favor of a much less comprehensive plan that doesn't shrink the size of government or the size of the deficit nearly as much...yet that seems to be exactly what they're going to do. Unfortunately, Grover Norquist and various other tax ideologues seem to have completely taken over the GOP and left no room for compromise on anything related to taxes. :(
 
I think they'll end up going with McConnell's "back up plan." Or they'll push the nation into default. One of the two.

At this point, McConnell's plan is extremely unpopular with House Repubs. Dunno if they'll stop playing hardball and come to their senses by August 2.

It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the fact that the Republican Party - which is ostensibly committed to smaller government and a balanced budget - would pass up the $3 trillion in spending cuts which Obama offered them in favor of a much less comprehensive plan that doesn't shrink the size of government or the size of the deficit nearly as much...yet that seems to be exactly what they're going to do. Unfortunately, Grover Norquist and various other tax ideologues seem to have completely taken over the GOP and left no room for compromise on anything related to taxes. :(

100% agree. Although Norquist gave tacit support to the gang of six plan because it gets rid of the AMT and in his eyes amounts to a net tax cut, for some reason.
 
Ever wonder why August 2 is the deadline for coming to an agreement on th debt ceiling?

Well, wonder no more. Never fear, Rush is here with the real reason.
 
Who do you trust to actually do it? And, if so, why?

Neither party can be trusted.Both parties spending out of control is what got us into this mess and neither side wants to make the necessary cuts.
 
I think they'll end up going with McConnell's "back up plan." Or they'll push the nation into default. One of the two.

nah. there is enough votes for a smaller increase tied to a same-size cut in spending. And the nation will not go into default.

we will see how this latest "big deal" between Boehner and Obama comes out. Obviously if it's a serious hike in effective tax rates, it's DOA.
 
I think they'll end up going with McConnell's "back up plan." Or they'll push the nation into default. One of the two.

It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the fact that the Republican Party - which is ostensibly committed to smaller government and a balanced budget - would pass up the $3 trillion in spending cuts which Obama offered them

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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom