• 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!

Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3

Mike Lee, Republican Senator from Utah - Going for the Jugular: President Obama Doesn't Have to Choose to Cut Social Security Benefits

His proposal:

index.cfm



What do you think?

Looks like a pretty dishonest proposal from Senator Lee. The biggest line item on his list of things to cut is "unclassified" ($34 billion per month), which is another way of saying he hasn't actually come up with the cuts (unless he has cited them somewhere other than this chart). The second-biggest item is defense vendor payments ($32 billion per month). While I agree with Sen. Lee that this should be drastically scaled back, he knows perfectly well that there is virtually zero support for this in Congress. I mean, congresspeople scream bloody murder every time a commission tries to shut down military bases in their state or district...there is no way they're going to allow him to cut the funding for some of their biggest donors.

The third-biggest item is education ($19 billion per month). While I think that it's a valid opinion that the federal government shouldn't be involved in education and reasonable people can disagree on that point, I think it's much less valid to believe that we can suddenly eliminate all of that spending without giving the states time to adjust...and in August, of all months, when the school year is just about to begin. Furthermore, the entire annual budget of the Department of Education is only $71 billion, so I don't know where he thinks he's going to find enough education money to save $19 billion per month.

I stopped looking after those three items, because most of the other cuts he suggested were relatively small. I do find it very telling that all of his cuts come from the discretionary budget rather than entitlements, and that the one cut that I looked into was actually more than the total amount we spend on that item. To me this suggests that his proposal is merely a way to benefit politically (by trying to pose as the defender of social security) among people who don't know or care about budgetary details, rather than a serious proposal to balance the budget.
 
Last edited:
a proper approach which will include cutting spending and raising taxes.

I am a Republican, but leaning away from the far right of the party that doesn't seem to want to face reality (much like the far left of the Democratic party).

I agree with you: we MUST cut spending, because Congress and the federal government are out of control and it's unsustainable. But we also HAVE to increase taxes a bit, but not just on the wealthy--that's where Obama's approach is all wrong. Taxes need to go up a couple percent ON EVERYBODY, not just on the top 1% or 2% of income earners. No one (no rational person, anyway) is suggesting that we go back to 70% or 90% rates on the highest marginal tax brackets. But it is clear that revenues have been too low, and expenditures--wars, bailouts, pensions, redundant programs, etc.--have been too high.

I think the only way we're going to get out of this mess is if enough rank and file Republicans (like me) speak up and say, "I'm okay with paying a bit more in taxes--IF you rein in spending" and if enough rank and file Democrats say "We can't fund the entire government by taxing the rich; we all have to chip in, and we're going to have to make some sacrifices."
 
I am a Republican, but leaning away from the far right of the party that doesn't seem to want to face reality (much like the far left of the Democratic party).

I agree with you: we MUST cut spending, because Congress and the federal government are out of control and it's unsustainable. But we also HAVE to increase taxes a bit, but not just on the wealthy--that's where Obama's approach is all wrong. Taxes need to go up a couple percent ON EVERYBODY, not just on the top 1% or 2% of income earners. No one (no rational person, anyway) is suggesting that we go back to 70% or 90% rates on the highest marginal tax brackets. But it is clear that revenues have been too low, and expenditures--wars, bailouts, pensions, redundant programs, etc.--have been too high.

I think the only way we're going to get out of this mess is if enough rank and file Republicans (like me) speak up and say, "I'm okay with paying a bit more in taxes--IF you rein in spending" and if enough rank and file Democrats say "We can't fund the entire government by taxing the rich; we all have to chip in, and we're going to have to make some sacrifices."

A targetted tax increase would be more effective. The few percentage points back to pre Bush tax cuts would have hardly been noticed by those targetted, and would have provided a good boost in revenue.

Now, I also agree we need cuts, and in the big three. But that is a ripe battle ground. One where good men from both parties have to cut most while doing the least harm. Means testing needs to be part of it, but so does real healthcare reform. One in which our leaders tackle the issue without the demonizing from either side. Good republcians don't want to kill granny, and good democrats are not proposing death panels. And comments of fascism and socialism / communism should stop on all sides.
 
Last edited:
The stimulus did a great deal of good, avoiding an almost certain depression. But we're just going to count that against him, apparently.

No, it did not do any good whatsoever. There was no "almost certain depression" and in fact unemployment rose. And yes, this, among other errors in truth and in fact, should be held against him.
 
The few percentage points back to pre Bush tax cuts would have hardly been noticed by those targetted

you don't know what you're talking about

Means testing needs to be part of it, but so does real healthcare reform

we just did obamacare

LOL!

where were you

it was in all the news
 
The stimulus did a great deal of good, avoiding an almost certain depression.

based on what? made up just-so circular arguments? the stimulus failed by it's own measures.
 
Was it a blow up? Obama, GOP get tense in talks - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

"Obama's speech was reportedly in response to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's repeated insistence that only a short-term, smaller deal on debt savings was possible. Following the meeting, Cantor told reporters that after the GOP rep.'s third time insisting that his party wouldn't budge, the president reportedly said: "Eric, don't call my bluff. I'm going to the American people with this."

I wonder if he means the American people whose Social Security Checks he says won't get mailed on 8/3?
 
Urging an unyielding theological line of no compromise whatsoever is exactly a championing of a failure to reach agreement.
So, in refusing to take tax hikes off the table and refusing to accept cuts in entitlements, The Obama and the Dems are responsible for a failure to reach agreement
 
You: Obama won't compromise.
Me: Obama offered 4 trillion in cuts that are deeply unpopular with his base and the GOP refuses to budge from their position.
:roll:
The Obama is unwilling to compromise on tax hikes.
This is every bit as uncompromising as the GOP unwillingness to compromise on tax hikes.
There's no intellectually honest way to argue otherwise - but, I am sure you'll try.
 
he couldn't get his own party to pass them back when they were the majority. so now he wants Republicans to pass tax hikes for him....




yeah. no thanks.
 
he couldn't get his own party to pass them back when they were the majority. so now he wants Republicans to pass tax hikes for him....




yeah. no thanks.

that indeed may be an attitude heard from those sitting at the childrens table......... but now they are sitting at the adults table and it is not appropriate.
 
You guys blame a man that was put into this situation. Sure, he passed a 700 billion package, but the true purpose of that bill was to save what little he could.

If you take any basic political science course, and you study the polls of presidents, you will find the same trend. They start in high favor, only to follow to disgust of the president. The worst in history was President George Busch Jr. This relationship can be best summed up by former President Clinton during a Letterman or Leno interview, I can't remember which one. He basically said the hardest part about being the President, is trying to balance the promises of your campaign with the reality of the world. You see, presidential candidates don't receive the black folder of the President. After they go through the highly competitive campaign, do they see the facts of our world. As pretty much every President has shown, the reality of the world requires them to go against promises.

And so, to the current presidency. Law makers were literally summoned one Friday afternoon, and were told that if they didn't sign over 700 billion to The Fed, there wouldn't be a financial system. Wall Street works lightyears faster than Washington, and eventually they signed the 700 billion dollar bill, but it was probably too late. Frankly, if you consider the events that unfolded, I feel the administration has done a fantastic job to at least keep what we have. Sure, the future of it is still unknown, but at least now we have a system to fight for.

The strategy of the stimulus bill I feel wasn't progressive enough. If you are going to go one route, I say do it all the way. They based the strategy after The New Deal during The Depression. The problem is, times change as well as technology and such. The best investment we as a country could of done with the stimulus package were to create new "green" jobs, in order to provide the infrastructure we are going to need in the year 2014-2015. It has been predicted that in those years, the amount of energy required to extract oil will be more than the energy collected. This is why it is a dire situation, that we must invest in alternative energies NOW.

The reason why as you guys put it, Obama is threatening Grandma and Grandpa wasn't his fault. If you were to blame any body, blame Wall Street for their unethical view of buy low and sell high at no matter the cost. It was the greed of wall street that threatens people's retirement, not Obama.

I view Obama's presidency as a destruction control presidency. He was handed the hard job of trying to do his best to preserve what we have. In my mind, he did a brilliant job. With wall street functioning many years faster than the real world, we are able to debate over a system that is still there.
 
You guys blame a man that was put into this situation.
At some point, the "Bush economy" excuse has to run out.
Of course, for the honest, that was better than a year ago.
 
So, in refusing to take tax hikes off the table and refusing to accept cuts in entitlements, The Obama and the Dems are responsible for a failure to reach agreement

That reference is to a political talk show host. Despite the difficult negotiating process, I do not yet believe that any single participant is going to be completely unyielding in the end. I expect a smaller deal than the reported "grand bargain" that had been under consideration that more than likely will put off major entitlement program reforms and tax policy changes. Ultimately, to return the nation to a fiscally sustainable path, those issues will need to be addressed. Unfortunately, given the limited time available before the debt ceiling needs to be hiked, those issues cannot reasonably be tackled at present.
 
It isn't an escape or an excuse, it is factually what happened.

Blindly hate the man if you wish, it doesn't mean it is rational.
 
At some point, the "Bush economy" excuse has to run out.
Of course, for the honest, that was better than a year ago.

You cannot expect such far reaching damage done over the course of 8 years to be repaired in less than half that time.

It's a lot hard to fix that it was to break.
 
That reference is to a political talk show host
Actually, no, it is in reference to those that argue that the GOP is unwilling to compromise, while the Dems are.
The Dems have their heels dug on two issues that they will not let go.
 
You cannot expect such far reaching damage done over the course of 8 years to be repaired in less than half that time.
It's a lot hard to fix that it was to break.
Not sure how this does anything but reinforce my post.
 
It isn't an escape or an excuse, it is factually what happened.

Blindly hate the man if you wish, it doesn't mean it is rational.
Thank you for reinforcing the soundness of my post.
 
You guys blame a man that was put into this situation. .

I think it would be more accurate to say we blame a man WHO CAMPAIGNED to be in this position. He knew the stakes, he knew the situation yet continued to run for the office. Let us not forget his "I'm suspending my campaign to go back to DC and meet with President Bush on the economic crisis. He did not go into this blind.
 
Back
Top Bottom