• 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!

How much do you care about balancing the US federal budget?

How much do you care about balancing the federal budget (in the medium/long term)?


  • Total voters
    21
The options for the poll are terrible.

Spending -has- to be reigned in - and significantly. Spending on entitlements dwarf any and every other Federal outlay; said revenue is spent regardless of available revenue. Before there can be any discussion about anything else, this must be addressed.
 
The options for the poll are terrible.

Spending -has- to be reigned in - and significantly. Spending on entitlements dwarf any and every other Federal outlay; said revenue is spent regardless of available revenue. Before there can be any discussion about anything else, this must be addressed.

The options for the poll are a simplified version of what goes on in Congress. If there was an easy, foolproof method to a balanced budget, politicians would have gone for it already.
 
There is no option there for my opinions. I am a firm believer that the purpose of government should be to govern - national defense, law enforcement, the judicial system, the corrections system, certain infrastructure, foreign policy, immigration policy are examples of things that I believe the government should do, and the government should collect taxes in an amount that pays for these functions without creating a deficit.

Currently, the government is spending money on things that aren't related to governing. All spending on those items should be stopped! This includes the department of education, corporate bailouts, economic stimuli, social programs, research grants (unless directly related to national defense), etc. You all get the idea.

Each person in the U.S. should fund the activities of government through taxes, and if unable to pay taxes the person should be required to perform services - If I'm too poor to pay taxes, I should have to file, sort mail, clean government buildings, or perform some service in lieu of paying my proportionate share of tax. Parents should be responsible for covering the requirement for their children until their children become adults.

Disabled individuals (and I mean truly disabled - they would have to be debilitated to the point of being unable to reproduce, play sports, work a tv remote, etc) would be exempt - but the exemptions should be relatively limited. If you've served in the military - you should be considered to have paid your tax in full.

So, lets recap- you would eliminate much of our medical system? ( since it would be unable to function w/o medicare and medicaid) Or would you just permit hospitals to refuse treatment of all low-income individuals and most of the elderly? Welfare would be eliminated except for military welfare recipients and the severely disabled. Or you would eliminate the V.A., as well? The unemployed would be sweeping streets and sorting mail for nothing and eating, what exactly? Higher education would be too expensive for most people so many private colleges would close. You would advocate what? - Heavy recuitment from China and India to fill all those jobs requiring higher education? Who do you think would fund basic research? Well, I guess the U.S. could concede that core endeavor to the Chinese, as well.

Of course, gov't revenue would drop even as tax rates dropped because the middle class would be decimated and the G.D.P. would plummet. The effort to balance the budget with ever fewer $$ would create an economic death spiral until corpoartions began moving back to the U.S. for all the cheap, cheap labor.
 
The truth isn't always attractive or convenient.
No... but it would be nice of the poll reflected the issue at hand.

If you are correct, the poll options address the question of 'how much do people in congress care about balancing the budget' - and are, of course, not all-inclusive. In that, there is disingenuity going on here.

I need to contact CC - he gets a hard-on about these things.
 
The options for the poll are terrible.

Spending -has- to be reigned in - and significantly. Spending on entitlements dwarf any and every other Federal outlay; said revenue is spent regardless of available revenue. Before there can be any discussion about anything else, this must be addressed.

No, there is another option- growth in the G.D.P. combined with control of H.C. costs/spending.

The Federal Gov't will save the banks on the backs of the retirees. It is already happening
 
this poll is sort of like asking whether a working engine is more important than having a car that runs.

1. deficits are spending driven, not revenue driven.
2. lower consistent tax rates + predictability = economic growth, which increases revenues.
 
No, there is another option- growth in the G.D.P....
Assuming that spending is frozen at current actual levels, how long will it take for an average yearly GDP growth of 3.5% to make up a $1.3T deficits?
How long to then pay down, say, hald the debt?

combined with control of H.C. costs/spending.
You mean control of federal spending on HC.
Heck, I can 'control' that right now, and it goes directly to what I said.
 
this poll is sort of like asking whether a working engine is more important than having a car that runs.

1. deficits are spending driven, not revenue driven.
2. lower consistent tax rates + predictability = economic growth, which increases revenues.

I think nearly all economists agree that lower taxes on the those who will spend it immediately can help stimulate growth but the piper must be paid and right now it is being paid by keeping interest rates so low that people on fixed incomes have a very hard time of it while the banks are given money for nothing.
 
Assuming that spending is frozen at current actual levels, how long will it take for an average yearly GDP growth of 3.5% to make up a $1.3T deficits?
How long to then pay down, say, hald the debt?


You mean control of federal spending on HC.
Heck, I can 'control' that right now, and it goes directly to what I said.

There is a difference between controlling the cost of H.C. by redesigning how we pay for it and controlling the cost of H.C. by just eliminating medicare/medicaid. I favor the former and most Repubs seem to favor the latter. I don't know what you favor but clearly it is a hot potato to tell the elderly that some things will change.
 
There is a difference between controlling the cost of H.C. by redesigning how we pay for it and controlling the cost of H.C. by just eliminating medicare/medicaid.
Yes. One is relevant to the issue of meaningfully reducing federal spending, and one is not.
:shrug:
 
Yes. One is relevant to the issue of meaningfully reducing federal spending, and one is not.
:shrug:

Well, that was a pointless remark.

I take it you would eliminate medicare and medicaid and out source the elderly?

Since it is not going to happen, maybe you could suggest a realistic plan to reduce the deficit.

"For every complex problem, there is always a simple answer and it is always wrong."
Mark Twain
 
I'm an independent... We need more jobs and I don't care how much it costs to get them. The future is now.

ricksfolly
 
Well, that was a pointless remark.
Significantly less so than trying to work the general issue of health care costs into a conversation about the reduction of federal spending.

Because entitlement spending is so overhwleming, directly and significantly reducing entitlement spending is the -only- way to actually and effectively address the deficit. This doesnt necessitate the elimination of any given program, but it -does- necessitate a wholesale reduction of benefits.

If you are not willing to accept this and work toward that end, then you are not in any way serious about deficit reduction, much less a balanced budget.
 
There is no option there for my opinions. I am a firm believer that the purpose of government should be to govern - national defense, law enforcement, the judicial system, the corrections system, certain infrastructure, foreign policy, immigration policy are examples of things that I believe the government should do, and the government should collect taxes in an amount that pays for these functions without creating a deficit.

Currently, the government is spending money on things that aren't related to governing. All spending on those items should be stopped! This includes the department of education, corporate bailouts, economic stimuli, social programs, research grants (unless directly related to national defense), etc. You all get the idea.

Each person in the U.S. should fund the activities of government through taxes, and if unable to pay taxes the person should be required to perform services - If I'm too poor to pay taxes, I should have to file, sort mail, clean government buildings, or perform some service in lieu of paying my proportionate share of tax. Parents should be responsible for covering the requirement for their children until their children become adults.

Disabled individuals (and I mean truly disabled - they would have to be debilitated to the point of being unable to reproduce, play sports, work a tv remote, etc) would be exempt - but the exemptions should be relatively limited. If you've served in the military - you should be considered to have paid your tax in full.

Many interesting ideas, but not necessarily good, at least for this age.
For example "no bailouts", thus no Chrysler Corp, and no GM.....right?
And no wall street nor banks for that matter.....
"no Dept of Education", thus no education for poor minorites.....right?
Choose a century, 16th or 17th.....when government had nearly nothing and the only tax was on whiskey..
Those were great times, were they not.
money for the "corrections", but no help for education.............right?
 
I'm an independent... We need more jobs and I don't care how much it costs to get them. The future is now.

ricksfolly

The problem is caused by 20 plus years of trade imbalance, and of course, the wars....so many...so expensive and so wasteful. Yet, our "leaders" cannot see this!
 
Where the hell is the choice for Libertarians / Centrists???? Im not a Democrat and Im DEFINATELY not a Republican!

Do you generally favor lower taxes and lower spending? If so, vote as a conservative. Do you generally favor more taxes and more spending? If so, vote as a liberal. There is limited space when writing the poll options to account for every possibility.
 
Significantly less so than trying to work the general issue of health care costs into a conversation about the reduction of federal spending.

Because entitlement spending is so overhwleming, directly and significantly reducing entitlement spending is the -only- way to actually and effectively address the deficit. This doesnt necessitate the elimination of any given program, but it -does- necessitate a wholesale reduction of benefits.

If you are not willing to accept this and work toward that end, then you are not in any way serious about deficit reduction, much less a balanced budget.

Entitlement spending IS health care. Social Security needs only a minor adjustment. So it is puzzling that Repubs have resisted every aspect of reform- even intent on spreading hysteria about "rationing" for the elderly. How credible can they be on the deficit reduction front when they previously expanded Medicare drug benefits, currently propose no reductions in military spending and no phase out of tax cuts. How exactly is that going to work out? Just wondering.
 
I think nearly all economists agree that lower taxes on the those who will spend it immediately can help stimulate growth but the piper must be paid and right now it is being paid by keeping interest rates so low that people on fixed incomes have a very hard time of it while the banks are given money for nothing.

it's less lower taxes on those who will spend it, and more lower taxes on those who will invest it wisely. capital gains taxes, for example, are particularly susceptible to changes in rate. an 8 point drop (such as what Clinton signed) will raise both productivity and revenues in ways that an 8 point drop in income taxes simply won't.

the piper must indeed be paid. but much of what we plan to owe the piper can be avoided. long term, we're going to have to drastically reduce what we pay out in entitlements if we want to avoid insolvency; and public employee pension plans are set to bankrupt local and state governments across the nation.

my vote; move Medicare onto a voucher program, allow people under 55 to put 5 of their 7% tax rate into privatized accounts (that way people are paying 2% into the system who represent no future liability, but are still themselves provided for), get rid of the Air Force (fold it's responsibilities back into an Army Air Corps and move it's space functions into what's left of NASA after we get rid of all non-defense portions). get rid of all non-defense and law-enorcement related subsidies; sell off our unneeded land and gold. open Alaska and our coasts to drilling and tax the same. end earmarks, cut current alternate entitlements into block grants that are phased out over time to return proper state responsibilities to the states. revoke the executive order allowing federal employees to unionize. then we'll talk about tax hikes, in the context of simplifying the code to reduce compliance costs.
 
And before anyone asks where the poll option is for "I'm a Republican/conservative who wants a low deficit and low taxes and low spending" (or the converse for Democrats)...the entire point of the poll is to NOT allow you to do that. You actually have to make a tough choice instead of just reciting your talking points.

sorry, not going to play the game but since the dems have to keep spending our money to buy the votes of the dem faithful, cutting taxes is clearly the proper response
 
Entitlement spending IS health care. Social Security needs only a minor adjustment. So it is puzzling that Repubs have resisted every aspect of reform- even intent on spreading hysteria about "rationing" for the elderly. How credible can they be on the deficit reduction front when they previously expanded Medicare drug benefits, currently propose no reductions in military spending and no phase out of tax cuts. How exactly is that going to work out? Just wondering.

Social Security needs only a minor adjustment? Hmmm? Okay. :thinking: And what, pray tell, would that "minor" adjustment be? I never realized the solution was so simple. So, you must tell.......thousands of economists and 535 members of Congress need to know. Also, feel free to tell us SPECIFICALLY what the implications of your "minor adjustment would be.
 
I would be too embarassed to call myself a republican and to smart to call myself a democrat. I am way to conservative to sit and smoke dope with liberals. And I am too damn liberal to sit, whine and complain and badmouth queers with the disgruntled conservatives.

But I am more for cutting expenses than cutting taxes. Nobody wants to pay high taxes. I am no exception. But when I think about all the good in this country, our roads, education, defense, etc., I know somebody's gotta pay for it. I find it funny that the people who can afford to pay their taxes whine about it more than the people who can't. I am frugal but I am not greedy.

Sure, I wanna keep more of my money in my pocket. But not at the cost of becoming a decaying society.
 
Last edited:
Entitlement spending IS health care.
And a bunch of other things. The point is you're trying to tie health care reform to deficit reduction, which only indicates a lack of seriousness regarding the issue.

Social Security needs only a minor adjustment.
SocSec is an entitlement program like all of the others. Like all of the others, it needs cut if there is to be any serious attempt to reduce the deficit.
 
Back
Top Bottom