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

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am a Republican/conservative; low taxes are more important than a low deficit

    1 3.70%
  • I am a Republican/conservative; a low deficit is more important than low taxes

    10 37.04%
  • I am a Democrat/liberal; high spending is more important than a low deficit

    7 25.93%
  • I am a Democrat/liberal; a low deficit is more important than high spending

    9 33.33%
Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 114

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

  1. #61
    Professor
    Cassandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    11-02-17 @ 02:39 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,319

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

    Quote Originally Posted by FederalRepublic View Post
    After the baby boom, yeah they did sort of.
    You do realize that baby boomers have provided a huge surplus paid to Soc. Sec. for many years? The recession is the biggest problem for Soc.Sec and for the deficit generally. Since 1900 the population of the U.S. has tripled but the economic output has gone up 20 times. For this reason, Soc. Sec. is not a classic Ponzi scheme and minor adjustments will be necessary to make it completely sovent. Of course another strategy would be to increase the number of illegal Latino immigrants who work and pay into Soc. Sec. but will never be allowed to collect.

    Oh well, when I hear Repubs. drone on about "fixing" soc. sec. and medicare as though they are synonymous, I know that is code for "dismantle"

    I am disappointed that know one seems up to the task of answering the question I asked- how are Republicans in Congress going to reduce the deficit considering their opposition to tax increases, H.C. rationing or cuts in military spending?

  2. #62
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    You know, if the gubberment wanted to refund me all the money I put in to SS and Medicare, and then do away with them both, I'd be cool with that.
    Without a doubt.

  3. #63
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    That is right. It can be easily fixed by raising the ceiling a small amount on income taxed for Soc.Sec. and raising the retirement age a year or two.
    Ah. So you -are- Ok with cutting entitlement benefits.
    The question is then - why arent you willing to do so in a meaningful manner?

  4. #64
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    S.Sec is not like aany other entitlement.
    SocSec is exactly like every other entitlement:
    You meet the requirements for benefits, and you get benefits. Nothing else matters, not even available revenue. Its automatic.
    And, it needs to be cut, just like every other entitlement, if there is any hope of mesningfully addressing the deficit.

    Health care is a completely different ball of wax. It is a run away train. Sensible rationing MUST take place.
    So you ARE OK with cutting entitlement benefits. Good.

  5. #65
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:35 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,942

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    You do realize that baby boomers have provided a huge surplus paid to Soc. Sec. for many years? The recession is the biggest problem for Soc.Sec and for the deficit generally. Since 1900 the population of the U.S. has tripled but the economic output has gone up 20 times. For this reason, Soc. Sec. is not a classic Ponzi scheme and minor adjustments will be necessary to make it completely sovent. Of course another strategy would be to increase the number of illegal Latino immigrants who work and pay into Soc. Sec. but will never be allowed to collect.

    Oh well, when I hear Repubs. drone on about "fixing" soc. sec. and medicare as though they are synonymous, I know that is code for "dismantle"

    I am disappointed that know one seems up to the task of answering the question I asked- how are Republicans in Congress going to reduce the deficit considering their opposition to tax increases, H.C. rationing or cuts in military spending?
    It is a classic ponzi scheme because the current recipients rely on those who follow.

    As for your question, you answered part of it yourself. "Fixing" social security and medicare by dismantling them will reduce those line items in the budget, and it's not as if they are small line items.

    For health care rationing, I thought that was one of the lies that republicans were spreading about the president's health care plan. Have you fallen for republican propaganda?

    I've seen several posts on here where people like me are not necessarily opposed to cuts in military spending, so if you are specifically referring to republicans in congress, I'll ask the same question of you. How are democrats in congress going to reduce the deficit if they insist on expanding every government program there is (with the possible exception of the military)?

  6. #66
    User deb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    11-23-10 @ 12:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    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 medical system worked prior to the implementation of Medicare in the 1960's. The problems in the medical system should not be the government's concern - those who operate medical facilities should have the ability to make their services available to the public - the old ones call this competition and contrary to the belief of many today - it works.

    The government should fund care for veterans - but that can be done by providing insurance benefits (CHAMPUS) that veterans can use in the private sector. The government cannot operate a classroom with 15 five year olds in it - do you really think they effectively operate hospitals for veterans. (In case you haven't dealt with the VA, they don't do such a great job.)

    Education is a commodity, just like clothing, food and shelter. Minus the Department of Education, private enterprise schools would compete for the education dollars being spent. This competition would create a better educational product, and because the privately operated schools would not be competing with "free" (and yes, many people consider public education to be free) education, the price would stabilize at a level the market would bear.

    The push for more people to attend college hasn't generated a lot of improvement in the capabilities of our labor market. Higher education may not be for everyone - and wasting tax dollars to pay for college for a person to have the college experience isn't how I want my money spent. Let them fund their own four year frat party.

    Prior to the creation of the Department of Education, people got educated, had the ability to formulate and implement ideas and the country was economically successful. Since the Department of Education, every child pushed through the system has been part of one experiment or another with no improvement in teaching them how to learn, how to think logically, how to solve problems etc. We are to a point that if a person is working in a job, and a customer asks a question of an employee that isn't scripted in their job procedures - all the customer gets is a dumb look. I don't know about the rest of you, but I got far fewer dumb looks prior to the federal takeover of education.

    Research should be the risk of private entities. If the research results in a viable marketable product - the gains from the research should be the reward of the private entity.

    Government revenue would most definitely drop under my suggestions - the government wouldn't need more revenue and the people who earned the money could spend it themselves. And if the people spent more of what they made - it would create a demand for more products - which would create a demand for more workers........hopefully you get the picture.

    I personally want manufacturing and production to return to the U.S. I prefer that they not come back for the "cheap, cheap labor", but that trade policies tax imports enough to allow an American made cell phone to compete fairly with a Chinese made cell phone.

    I'd buy the American, even if the price was marginally higher - just to support the U.S. laborer.
    Last edited by deb; 11-06-10 at 03:10 PM.

  7. #67
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,618

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    "So when did you stop beating your wife?"


    Poll FAIL.
    Hence the reason I never vote in polls...

    But to answer the question...I am very committed to seeing the debt paid down. I am absolutely opposed to the fed simply raising taxes. If the debt is going to be reduced the fed has to develop concrete goals...spending reductions, elimination of frivolous spending, targeted cuts in EVERY program, mandated by legislation. If the fed were to do that I would actually be in favor of at least capping taxes (no cuts) and perhaps even implementing some other form of targeted tax increases SPECIFICALLY to pay down the debt. The universal health care at the federal level HAS to go...cant afford it, cant realistically implement it. The military has to have cuts (not in warfighting capabilities but anyone that has served and is honest will admit there is INCREDIBLE waste in the military. Congress should be revamped (400k per year to each senator and representative...but from that 400 they must pay staff...pay for travel...pay for rent on office space...EVERYTHING).

    Real finite solutions...until then...promote tax cuts and get the federa lgovernment the hell out of the way of the free market, productive members of society, and the economy.

  8. #68
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Raising taxes and cutting spending doesn't happen in the real world either.
    The current coalition in Britain seems to disagree with you. As does Sarkozy's government which is set to hike taxes and cut retirement spending. Paying attention to the rest of the world would prevent you from making statements like that.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #69
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    Are people going to stop reproducing?
    At the rate necessarily to add productive workers to feed the increasingly growing costs of beneficiaries? Yes.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #70
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

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

    It would appear that cutting spending at the time when private spending is at relatively low levels and therefore unable to compensate would lead to higher unemployment, higher automatic mandatory spending and a reduction in net revenue. So in a sense, cutting spending to balance the budget becomes an impossible task in that context as it keeps generating a deficit thereby calling for more cuts and in turn leading to more deficits.

    In the long run a low deficit is more important then low taxes as the debt is expanding to Biblical proportions and is completely unsustainable. Constantly adding to the debt will ensure that debt servicing will become an even larger part of the budget. While debt servicing does act as a form of stimulus as the majority of debt is held by domestic investors, it is an inefficient form of stimulus. I've said it time and time again, we are going to be forced to raise taxes and cut spending to get our debt under control. Anyone who thinks we can do it via just spending or tax cuts is delusional. In a sense, we are going to have to engage in European style austerity and it is going to hurt. And the voting public will likely rebel against it. Neither party has the proverbial balls to see this through.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •