• 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
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.

Deficit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.



I don't know if we have the wiggle room to cut taxes right now. We may be at the other end of the Laffer Curve.

What might be a big help is if the Feds stopped suing people like Boeing for Creating Jobs or shutting down Gibson Guitars for creating jobs or running oil rigs out of the Gulf on a whim or similar anti business moves.
 
[...] What might be a big help is if the Feds stopped suing people like Boeing for Creating Jobs or shutting down Gibson Guitars for creating jobs or running oil rigs out of the Gulf on a whim or similar anti business moves.
We both know it would not be a big help, but I'm sure it felt good to get that off your ideological chest :2razz:
 
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.
A cheaper widget is not necessarily a better widget. In fact, it can be worse.

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?"
In the case of the auto industry a few decades ago, the American engineers were designing a shoddy product (to save money) while the Japanese engineers designed a quality product (at a slightly higher cost). The rest is history. Wages were not an issue.

The better way to compete is the way Apple does. Better products and better ideas.
True, but even Jobs succumbed to the capitalist disease (as if he hadn't a long time ago, screwing Wozniak -- the brains of the operation -- here and there), recently bragging how Chinese indentured servant assembly line workers can be woken up in the middle of the night to effect last minute engineering changes.
 
[....] 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.
Do you live in that conservative universe where increasing income is a mathematical impossibility?
 
Spending cuts need to be the largest factor, we are spending far too much and it isn't sustainable. [...]
Says who, and compared to what?
 
The best way to reduce the deficit in the short to mid term is either to exploit the ocean of energy lying at our feet, or to kill all of the baby boomers. Your choice.
 
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?

The worst thing you could do to our consumer economy is to tax spending. We need to tax income NOT spent if we are to grow the economy and not shrink GDP by taking away money that people would otherwise spend. The more progressive the tax structure is the faster our economy can grow.
 
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.

Why would raising taxes on the top brackets effect spending or growth even in a downturn? The wealthy spend all they want regardless of tax rates. The more we tax them the more they make anyway.
 
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.

I agree that tax increases on the low- and middle-income would be disastrous, but why do you think raising taxes on people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year or more would be foolish? They've had these tax rates for a decade and guess what, the "job creation" from these wealthy "job creators" hasn't materialized. Even before the recession, the economy under the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy was not booming.

To me, cutting spending and raising taxes on the wealthy go hand-in-hand for deficit reduction. Why do you think Bill Clinton's presidency ended in huge budget surpluses? The people who can afford to pay more taxes should pay more taxes than they are now in my opinion.
 
I agree that tax increases on the low- and middle-income would be disastrous, but why do you think raising taxes on people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year or more would be foolish?

1. Raising nominal rates on upper income earners will not produce more revenue
2. It will increase the amount of time, energy, and resources that upper income earners spend minimizing their tax exposure which
3. Means that it will also decrease the amount of time, energy, and resources that they put into being productive.


The people who can afford to pay more taxes should pay more taxes than they are now in my opinion.

Then you need to start taxing the middle class. Which is more likely to actually get you increased revenue, anyway.
 
The worst thing you could do to our consumer economy is to tax spending. We need to tax income NOT spent if we are to grow the economy and not shrink GDP by taking away money that people would otherwise spend. The more progressive the tax structure is the faster our economy can grow.


explain how the income tax distinguishes between income not spent versus income spent
 
The worst thing you could do to our consumer economy is to tax spending.

Actually that would be one of the best things to do if you wanted solid growth rather than a series of bubbles. No nation has ever consumed it's way into prosperity - you produce your way into prosperity.

The more progressive the tax structure is the faster our economy can grow.

The United States currently has the most progressive income tax structure in the modern world.
 
You left something off: Tax newly legalized services. Sexual freedom should be legalized, meaning if someone wants to pay for sexual services, he should be able to. That should be regulated and taxed. If someone wants to consume marijuana or Psilocybin mushrooms for medicinal or recreational use, he should be allowed to. Again, regulate and tax it.

I would also put a 99% tax on all corporate bribery -- I mean donations -- of political campaigns. Of course, they might just quit donating if the tax were that high. FINE WITH ME!

There should be cuts, but not of Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, or education. We should END the war on drugs that would save money on wasted enforcement. Also give amnesty to people convicted of non-violent drug offenses and let them out of prison -- less money spend on prisons. Withdraw all troops from Afghanistan immediately -- more money saved.
 
Remove capital gains tax. The single biggest mistake ever. All income should be taxed as income not "capital gains".

Means test many deductions or remove.

Cut waste in military and security spending. Includes cutting a branch of the military.

Cut waste in over all government spending... aka pork projects.

Means test SS. Ron Paul does not need SS...

Tackle the private healthcare cartel to reduce over all costs in healthcare which will effect Medicaid and care. Single biggest problem in the US at the moment.

But all this wont happen because of the money involved in the political process to maintain the status quo.
 
Last edited:
We both know it would not be a big help, but I'm sure it felt good to get that off your ideological chest :2razz:



Do you think that moves like these by the federal Government send a message to business people that the Feds are there to help them or to punish them? Everything the Federal government does that affects any business sends a message to all businesses.

What message id this administration sending to those who live "behind enemy lines"?
 
A cheaper widget is not necessarily a better widget. In fact, it can be worse.


In the case of the auto industry a few decades ago, the American engineers were designing a shoddy product (to save money) while the Japanese engineers designed a quality product (at a slightly higher cost). The rest is history. Wages were not an issue.


True, but even Jobs succumbed to the capitalist disease (as if he hadn't a long time ago, screwing Wozniak -- the brains of the operation -- here and there), recently bragging how Chinese indentured servant assembly line workers can be woken up in the middle of the night to effect last minute engineering changes.



A widget that costs less and is of the same or higher quality will condemn the higher priced, lower quality widget to a long life on the shelf followed by a quick trip to the discount aisle.

I drove past Rockford Illinois in the later mid 70's and saw Chrysler products parked as far as the eye could see in a lot visible from the freeway. It registered in my brain as unusual, but i didn't really make the connection between that and a failed business model.

I do now.
 
Do you live in that conservative universe where increasing income is a mathematical impossibility?




I live in Indianapolis where both the City and the State have surpluses.
 
I put other....we do not need to raise taxs...we need to plug the loopholes that allow the rich and corporations to get away with murder...we need more regulation that MAKES them keep jobs here to expand the tax base.

We need to cut spending reasonably in a way that does not hurt large groups of people...we need reasonable entitlement reform..

If we combine all 3 of those we would zooom right out of debt....without anyone getting hurt except for the larynxs of the far right
 
Says who, and compared to what?



Anybody with any sense says this and it is compared to what the feds used to spend. This link takes you to a chart that shows that Federal spending per household has about doubled since 1965 figured in constant 2012 dollars adjusted for inflation.

This is the perfect example of an organization doing less with more. Every other organization on the planet that has implemented the use of computers has reduced payroll as a result. Not the Gubmint. They have increased their headcount and the average pay of each head.

What's wrong with this picture?

Federal Spending per Household Is Skyrocketing
 
The worst thing you could do to our consumer economy is to tax spending. We need to tax income NOT spent if we are to grow the economy and not shrink GDP by taking away money that people would otherwise spend. The more progressive the tax structure is the faster our economy can grow.



Instead of taxing those who have savings, why not incent the spending by offering tax credits? If the Trillion dollars or so of the Failed Stimulus had been used as tax credits instead of a fund to pay back, pay off and prop up Obama supporters, it would have stimulated the economy. If that trillion had been used to credit back 20% of any home improvement, the private sector would have spent 5 trillion and the economy would have taken off like a raped ape.

Pumping 6 trillion dollars into the economy in 12 months would have done something big. As it was, the Big 0 and his gang of thieves pissed away our money and our future. What he did is very nearly criminal.

By the by, the trillion used as incentives would have been tax money and the incented 5 trillion spent by the private sector would have created commerce and that commerce would have been taxed and the trillion would have come right back.

THAT is what a stimulus looks like. We have witnessed what a Failed Stimulus looks like.
 
Last edited:
Why would raising taxes on the top brackets effect spending or growth even in a downturn? The wealthy spend all they want regardless of tax rates. The more we tax them the more they make anyway.




Why do you think you have a right to take away the money that someone else has earned?
 
I agree that tax increases on the low- and middle-income would be disastrous, but why do you think raising taxes on people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year or more would be foolish? They've had these tax rates for a decade and guess what, the "job creation" from these wealthy "job creators" hasn't materialized. Even before the recession, the economy under the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy was not booming.

To me, cutting spending and raising taxes on the wealthy go hand-in-hand for deficit reduction. Why do you think Bill Clinton's presidency ended in huge budget surpluses? The people who can afford to pay more taxes should pay more taxes than they are now in my opinion.



Clinton's surpluses were based on the .com revolution. When that ended, so did the boom.

I was managing a business when the millennium turned and it was like a light switch was flipped. We had to scrap all of the budgets in about march and start over. The same was true of all of business nation wide.
 
You left something off: Tax newly legalized services. Sexual freedom should be legalized, meaning if someone wants to pay for sexual services, he should be able to. That should be regulated and taxed. If someone wants to consume marijuana or Psilocybin mushrooms for medicinal or recreational use, he should be allowed to. Again, regulate and tax it.

I would also put a 99% tax on all corporate bribery -- I mean donations -- of political campaigns. Of course, they might just quit donating if the tax were that high. FINE WITH ME!

There should be cuts, but not of Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, or education. We should END the war on drugs that would save money on wasted enforcement. Also give amnesty to people convicted of non-violent drug offenses and let them out of prison -- less money spend on prisons. Withdraw all troops from Afghanistan immediately -- more money saved.



The recent debate on the definitions of words regarding availability of birth control has caused much thought. If a woman has a baby and is then to go on welfare and we all have to support her family as a result, in my mind she has refused to take responsibility for her actions and her freedom should also be curtailed.

Should this woman be spayed like a dog to reduce the number of children we need to support for her?

Just an idle thought in an idle minute.
 
You left something off: Tax newly legalized services. Sexual freedom should be legalized, meaning if someone wants to pay for sexual services, he should be able to. That should be regulated and taxed. If someone wants to consume marijuana or Psilocybin mushrooms for medicinal or recreational use, he should be allowed to. Again, regulate and tax it.

I would also put a 99% tax on all corporate bribery -- I mean donations -- of political campaigns. Of course, they might just quit donating if the tax were that high. FINE WITH ME!

There should be cuts, but not of Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, or education. We should END the war on drugs that would save money on wasted enforcement. Also give amnesty to people convicted of non-violent drug offenses and let them out of prison -- less money spend on prisons. Withdraw all troops from Afghanistan immediately -- more money saved.


Are there any other forms of speech you would like to tax?
 
What do you think are the best ways to eliminate the deficit?
Eliminate 3/4 of the earth's human population with treatment resistant tuberculosis and small pox, put the survivors to work in the rebuilding process, continue building our military strength, and use that to coerce weaker nations.
 
Back
Top Bottom