• 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!

What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

What is (are) the best way(s) to eliminate the deficit?

  • A balanced budget amendment

    Votes: 20 24.7%
  • A line item veto amenndment

    Votes: 14 17.3%
  • replace income tx with a national retail sales tax

    Votes: 9 11.1%
  • Raise taxes on the rich

    Votes: 30 37.0%
  • Raise taxes on the middle-class

    Votes: 5 6.2%
  • Raise taxes stealthily in the form of fees, a federal lottery, etc.

    Votes: 3 3.7%
  • Nationalize oil and natural gas on federal land and get into the enegry business like Saudi Arabia

    Votes: 10 12.3%
  • Cut federal spending

    Votes: 56 69.1%
  • Sell services to prizate industry at a profit, privatize then tax them

    Votes: 3 3.7%
  • other

    Votes: 23 28.4%

  • Total voters
    81
If we enact protectionism China would suffer and bring all jobs back China would be begging back to us.




Your policy would result in our stores increasing the price of the Chinese goods as they would be imported through Canada or Mexico.
 
[...] 8.)Nationalize the banking industry
Well, we need to do that just to keep them from destroying the monetary system (although with something like $500 trillion of derivatives floating around out there, as I read recently in an article on the LIBOR scandal, I suspect it is too far gone already).
 
We will never know as long as we keep up this great policy that "helps American jobs" so well which is known as "free trade"



Competition makes things better. Competition in the marketplace increases the value of products and the range of products available.

Your system implemented in the 50's would result in our country today driving Edsels designed by folks using slide rules.
 
Nationalize oil and natural gas on federal land and get into the enegry business like Saudi Arabia or A balanced budget amendment
Hmmm, I'm liking the sound of that. After all, those are public resources, and I'm unsure why Exxon-Mobil should be allowed to use them to become the richest corporation on the planet (Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, and Conoco-Phillips have a combine gross revenue of $1 trillion annually). Private exploration, okay, I can see that, but it seems like the public is not the proper bang for its natural resource buck.

Well, the public is getting banged, but in another context . . . . . .
 
We have two choices:

1. Enact tariffs against items imported from China.

2. Modify our environmental and labor laws so they are similar to those in China.

Any economist with half a brain could immediately tell you that option 2 is the right decision.



The issue is not one exclusively economical. I would be among the first to agree that the EPA has run amuck led by zealots who have lost touch with reality.

However, the last time a river in the USA burst into flame was before the Nixon Resignation. I like rivers that don't burn.
 
Competition makes things better. Competition in the marketplace increases the value of products and the range of products available.

Your system implemented in the 50's would result in our country today driving Edsels designed by folks using slide rules.
Competition makes cheap Chinese products that break the first time you use them.

Competition makes your job go overseas to someone who will do it for 50 cents an hour while they live in squalor (no electricity, no sewer, no indoor plumbing).

Competition makes it cheaper to hire an illegal alien to mow your lawn than the kid next door. In fact, competition makes the illegal aliens come here in the first place.
 
With all due respect, have you read the Communist Manifesto?




Busted! I have not. I should have related it directly to centrally controlled states that strangle creativity and allow the drive and ambition of the population to languish.
 
Busted! I have not. I should have related it directly to centrally controlled states that strangle creativity and allow the drive and ambition of the population to languish.

That probably would've been better :lol:

In all seriousness, it does not propose many of the core components of Communism, it merely suggests the reasons. It's actually really interesting to read and makes a lot of sense (even though Communism could never work)
 
Competition makes cheap Chinese products that break the first time you use them.

Competition makes your job go overseas to someone who will do it for 50 cents an hour while they live in squalor (no electricity, no sewer, no indoor plumbing).

Competition makes it cheaper to hire an illegal alien to mow your lawn than the kid next door. In fact, competition makes the illegal aliens come here in the first place.




No. Competition makes a man run a mile in less the 4 minutes. It creates and/or brings to prominence a guy like Michael Phelps. It displaces a car like the Plymouth Fury III in favor of the Honda Accord.

Without competition, the consumer is provided with a tunnel visioned result of a closed system. With Competition, the consumer is provided with the cooperative result of the best and the brightest vying to be the best.

Competition is what has given us Microsoft and Apple, Ford and Toyota and Letterman and Leno.

Competition is results where talent, work, inspiration and drive meet to address need.
 
That probably would've been better :lol:

In all seriousness, it does not propose many of the core components of Communism, it merely suggests the reasons. It's actually really interesting to read and makes a lot of sense (even though Communism could never work)



That is the problem with Paradise. It's not a place designed for us.
 
Competition makes cheap Chinese products that break the first time you use them.

Sorry you don't like what's going on in China. Why do you liberal Democrats refuse to compete with the Chinese? We could keep jobs in America if the blue collar workers would accept 30 to 40 percent pay cuts.
 
I would support the Tea Party a lot more if they pushed for a constitutional amendment for replacing the income tax with a national retail sales tax and giving the POTUS the line item veto as opposed to their drive for a balanced budget amendment.

What do you think are the best ways to eliminate the deficit?
A national sales tax is a) regressive (disproportionately hurts the lower incomes), and b) detrimental to GDP.

A line item veto is counterintuitive with respect to the Constitution (i.e., it crosses the separation of powers line).

The short answer to the question in your thread title is to get the economy back on track (revenues will increase as a result). However, there are other fundamental issues that need to be addressed regardless:

1. Gov't revenue as a percentage of GDP, currently horribly too low (about 15%), seems to be low historically (say, 20%) compared to other 'first world' countries. This needs to be looked at. Perhaps once state and local taxes are factored in, the resultant 'national' tax rate is more in line with other prosperous countries. I doubt it, but I haven't looked at combined figures.

2. Given a studious effort, government efficiency might be increased by roughly 10%, but this is pretty much peanuts ($350 billion). You could -- and should -- cut the defense budget in half and save more than that ($400 billion).

3. Entitlements, welfare, social security, it all is what it is. You can't cut it without damaging the economy, and you should not cut it regardless. Again, an increase in efficiencies might help, but it would be peanuts. You could do some workfare if it made you feel better, but it wouldn't impact expenditures to any great extent.

4. Gov't revenue needs to go way up, as noted in #1. I think the transaction tax on Wall Street should be implemented.... as it stands now, I can buy and sell a billion dollars of stock a day and not pay a dime in sales tax (actually I buy and sell a bit less than that, and not every day ;) ). Total annual dollar volume on the NYSE and NASDAQ combined is roughly $17 trillion... a 6% federal 'sales' tax on that would reap $1 trillion in annual revenue. That, plus halving the Defense budget, would pretty much balance the budget right there (although the defense cuts would have to be made delicately to avoid GDP impact).

5. Foreign aid and such is peanuts (what, $80 billion?). Plus, like most rich people, we generally have to buy our friends. Although all the war crap needs to stop immediately, as slashing the Defense budget (above) would require.

6. Something could be done to lessen the trade deficit (currently about $600 billion/yr), but you have to tread cautiously here to avoid pissing off countries that buy our stuff. A lot could be done to keep U.S. companies from outsourcing so much... that would probably erase the trade deficit right there while boosting domestic GDP and well as gov't revenues (more jobs).

7. Legalizing drugs, as others mentioned, would have positive impact throughout the economy -- new taxes, decreased spending on interdiction, decreased spending on incarceration, decrease in crime overall throughout the country). Not an economy-saver, but a great weight off the nation's shoulders. Such a common sense win-win that only a straightjacketed conservative could resist. However, I'm sure that all DP Libertarians are in favor of it . . . . . .
 
Sorry you don't like what's going on in China. Why do you liberal Democrats refuse to compete with the Chinese? We could keep jobs in America if the blue collar workers would accept 30 to 40 percent pay cuts.
If you want to work for 30 or 40 percent less pay, why not move to China? They don't have any unions over there, nor any EPA, nor any OSHA, I'm sure you'd just love it :mrgreen:
 
I would support the Tea Party a lot more if they pushed for a constitutional amendment for replacing the income tax with a national retail sales tax and giving the POTUS the line item veto as opposed to their drive for a balanced budget amendment.

What do you think are the best ways to eliminate the deficit?

only appoint judges who will enforce the Tenth Amendment's limitations on the federal government is the best solution

the second solution is to get rid of income tax withholding and make people write a check the day before the elections and that the tax be the same amount for everyone. Once the middle class realizes it has to pay for what it uses, the government spending will take a serious beat down
 
No. Competition makes a man run a mile in less the 4 minutes. It creates and/or brings to prominence a guy like Michael Phelps. It displaces a car like the Plymouth Fury III in favor of the Honda Accord.

Without competition, the consumer is provided with a tunnel visioned result of a closed system. With Competition, the consumer is provided with the cooperative result of the best and the brightest vying to be the best.

Competition is what has given us Microsoft and Apple, Ford and Toyota and Letterman and Leno.

Competition is results where talent, work, inspiration and drive meet to address need.
I didn't say competition was bad. I was pointing out that it has warts and should not be accorded God-like status, as conservatives are wont to do.

Crass capitalism gave us Microsoft -- Bill Gates stole MS-DOS from someone less financially inclined. And after tweaking it for 40-odd years, Windows still sucks and is worse than the original product (QDOS).

The Plymouth Fury III was available with the 426 Hemi V-8. I'll take one of those over a Honda Accord, and see you in my rear view mirror, thank you very much :mrgreen:
 
Sorry you don't like what's going on in China. Why do you liberal Democrats refuse to compete with the Chinese? We could keep jobs in America if the blue collar workers would accept 30 to 40 percent pay cuts.



That's an uninspired view. The best way to lose a fight is to give up.

The productivity in business is not measured in widgets per hour, but in widgets per dollar. We don't need to decrease what we pay workers if we can figure out how to make our workers' work count for more.

In the case of the auto industry, we were once able to out automate the competition. Now the competition is as automated as we are. Only at this point do we ask, "If their guys are doing exactly the same hi-tech work as our guys and doing it, but at half the wage rate, are we overpaying?"

The better way to compete is the way Apple does. Better products and better ideas.
 
A national sales tax is a) regressive (disproportionately hurts the lower incomes), and b) detrimental to GDP.

A line item veto is counterintuitive with respect to the Constitution (i.e., it crosses the separation of powers line).

The short answer to the question in your thread title is to get the economy back on track (revenues will increase as a result). However, there are other fundamental issues that need to be addressed regardless:

1. Gov't revenue as a percentage of GDP, currently horribly too low (about 15%), seems to be low historically (say, 20%) compared to other 'first world' countries. This needs to be looked at. Perhaps once state and local taxes are factored in, the resultant 'national' tax rate is more in line with other prosperous countries. I doubt it, but I haven't looked at combined figures.

2. Given a studious effort, government efficiency might be increased by roughly 10%, but this is pretty much peanuts ($350 billion). You could -- and should -- cut the defense budget in half and save more than that ($400 billion).

3. Entitlements, welfare, social security, it all is what it is. You can't cut it without damaging the economy, and you should not cut it regardless. Again, an increase in efficiencies might help, but it would be peanuts. You could do some workfare if it made you feel better, but it wouldn't impact expenditures to any great extent.

4. Gov't revenue needs to go way up, as noted in #1. I think the transaction tax on Wall Street should be implemented.... as it stands now, I can buy and sell a billion dollars of stock a day and not pay a dime in sales tax (actually I buy and sell a bit less than that, and not every day ;) ). Total annual dollar volume on the NYSE and NASDAQ combined is roughly $17 trillion... a 6% federal 'sales' tax on that would reap $1 trillion in annual revenue. That, plus halving the Defense budget, would pretty much balance the budget right there (although the defense cuts would have to be made delicately to avoid GDP impact).

5. Foreign aid and such is peanuts (what, $80 billion?). Plus, like most rich people, we generally have to buy our friends. Although all the war crap needs to stop immediately, as slashing the Defense budget (above) would require.

6. Something could be done to lessen the trade deficit (currently about $600 billion/yr), but you have to tread cautiously here to avoid pissing off countries that buy our stuff. A lot could be done to keep U.S. companies from outsourcing so much... that would probably erase the trade deficit right there while boosting domestic GDP and well as gov't revenues (more jobs).

7. Legalizing drugs, as others mentioned, would have positive impact throughout the economy -- new taxes, decreased spending on interdiction, decreased spending on incarceration, decrease in crime overall throughout the country). Not an economy-saver, but a great weight off the nation's shoulders. Such a common sense win-win that only a straightjacketed conservative could resist. However, I'm sure that all DP Libertarians are in favor of it . . . . . .




Every time you tamper with something, you change it. The government imposed a luxury tax which included Yaught builders and the taught builders went out of business as the taught buyers got their boats from Canadian builders.

If I was elected President tomorrow, I would immediately reduce spending in all departments and programs to the levels they received in 2008. If the program or department didn't exist in 2008, it would cease to exist today.

I don't know where you live. Between the Fed income tax, the state income tax, the property tax and all of the sales and use taxes, I am well over 20% of my income.

"Entitlements, welfare and social security..." Entitlements and Welfare may be needed but are not on the same page as Social Security which is a social contract. Over the course of my career, i've probably paid in the equivalent of about a quarter million dollars. If I had been allowed to contribute this to a 401K type investment, I'd have about 2 or 3 million right now.

Whether it is as a nation or as an individual, the way to reduce debt is to reduce spending to less than income and pay off the debt with the excess. Loaves and fishes have nothing to do with it.
 
I didn't say competition was bad. I was pointing out that it has warts and should not be accorded God-like status, as conservatives are wont to do.

Crass capitalism gave us Microsoft -- Bill Gates stole MS-DOS from someone less financially inclined. And after tweaking it for 40-odd years, Windows still sucks and is worse than the original product (QDOS).

The Plymouth Fury III was available with the 426 Hemi V-8. I'll take one of those over a Honda Accord, and see you in my rear view mirror, thank you very much :mrgreen:



Check for me in your windshield. I drive a 300C with a Hemi. It's a flex fuel vehicle: Burns rubber and gas. If I put the pedal on the floor, that thing will travel through time.

By the by, I had a Fury III and it was an okay car, but the design was a tad sloppy and the fit and finish was wanting. Still, it had power to spare. Had to. It was as big as a motor home.
 
Last edited:
Reform entitlements to bring down spending.

Yes.

Simplify the tax code and cut nominal rates to increase revenue.

Kill it with fire! If there's anything that the government doesn't need it's more revenue.
 
Spending cuts need to be the largest factor, we are spending far too much and it isn't sustainable. Tax increases would be foolish in my opinion. I would support eliminating some tax loopholes, but not increasing taxes on anyone (especially during an economic downturn). First and foremost though, there needs to be drastic spending cuts.
 
, there needs to be drastic spending cuts.


How many decades have we heard that? How many politicians have cried that?

For years now politicians of both parties have been Sandusking us. Then they retire from office and with the crazy luck of landing a job as a lobbyist with a corporation they helped and so it goes on and on.
 
Every time you tamper with something, you change it. The government imposed a luxury tax which included Yaught builders and the taught builders went out of business as the taught buyers got their boats from Canadian builders.

If I was elected President tomorrow, I would immediately reduce spending in all departments and programs to the levels they received in 2008. If the program or department didn't exist in 2008, it would cease to exist today.

I don't know where you live. Between the Fed income tax, the state income tax, the property tax and all of the sales and use taxes, I am well over 20% of my income.

"Entitlements, welfare and social security..." Entitlements and Welfare may be needed but are not on the same page as Social Security which is a social contract. Over the course of my career, i've probably paid in the equivalent of about a quarter million dollars. If I had been allowed to contribute this to a 401K type investment, I'd have about 2 or 3 million right now.

Whether it is as a nation or as an individual, the way to reduce debt is to reduce spending to less than income and pay off the debt with the excess. Loaves and fishes have nothing to do with it.

Yep. You make a VERY valid point when comparing US taxation to "other countries". These "other countires" have ONE tax, and it is national ONLY, and comparing that to 3 (or more) taxing layers of gov't (fed, state, county, city and local) is an apples to moonrocks comparison. Spending on national defense is WAY too high, as most of that spending is simply PORK to get (and keep) all of DC on that gravy train. The "equating" of welfare and SS is INSANE, one is a program that rewards out of wedlock childbirth, dropping out of school and generally being worthless, the other is a reward for having worked your entire life (while paying taxes) and ONLY THEN getting a benefit based on the amount that YOU contributed, IFF you actually live that long (or become disabled).
 
Last edited:
How to eliminate the deficit? well, Quit spending more money than we have in revenues.

How about pass a budget?

But first we have to get some people to quit pushing the assine concept that tax cuts increase the deficit. It's obviously untrue and anyone who says it is insincere or ignorant. The only way to make a deficit is to SPEND money. Until we can all decide on that part, it's a lost cause.

No, it is not obviously untrue. A budget deficit is the difference between income (receipts) and expenditures. You can widen the deficit by reducing income or increasing expenditures or any combination thereof. You can lower deficits by doing the opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit

Your statement that cutting taxes does not increase the deficit is arguable; it is very, very far from axiomatic, which you imply. While its ok to hold the position that reducing taxes does not affect the deficit, you have to recognize that it is only a position. Given, that the statement is contrary to logic (reducing taxes acts first to reduce receipts and therefore widen the deficit) the burden of proof is on you to support that statement.

What is insincere and ignorant is thinking you can just make such a broad statement, pound your chest and think you have the truth. You are trumpeting a belief system that is in the minority and frankly illogical, its really up to you to support your claim. Good luck, however, as there is very little to no evidence supporting this assertion.

Please honor the intelligence of other people on this forum and step up your game with intelligent comments and evidence supporting your statements. You can help yourself here by presenting the work of an established economist. If you can not do this then stick to posting things you know something about.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom