• 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!

State of the Union Address

Free_Radical said:
Cite the portion? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at or how its relevant to what I said.

Brian
Click to expand...

SS has a 2.6 trillion dollar surplus. I was trying to get you to discover this on your own.
 
By all logic and reason - how can we conclude anything other than the reality that our nation’s income/debt ratio is so profound that it is impossible for taxpayers to substantially reduce our enormous national debt – using current government taxation and spending methods and powers?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I dunno, I wasn't born 30 years ago, it wasn't my responsibility.
Not debts incurred without my consent, no they aren't mine.
Click to expand...

Most of our debt is do to excessive military spending and optional wars that I didn't approve, should I be able to say I don't want to pay for that?

As a US citizen, you (for your share of taxes) are responsible to pay US debts.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Changes to programs, cause changes to behavior.
When people have to spend more of their own money, to get things they need, they are much more careful.

Adjusting the Medicare payment scheme, to encourage more mindful spending, by actual consumers isn't a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Yes, that sounds logical, but in reality it isn't the case. Medicare and VA costs per patient are not much different than costs for those using private insurance. If anything they are lower.

If you're thinking that these folks are going to be paying for their health care out of their own pockets, think again. 99.9% of the people in this country would go bankrupt if they came down with a serious illness and didn't have insurance.

The answer to this problem is so painfully obvious. Our per capita costs are DOUBLE what other advanced countries pay. Other advanced countries ALL employ single payer in one form or another. 2 + 2 = ?
 
Removable Mind said:
By all logic and reason - how can we conclude anything other than the reality that our nation’s income/debt ratio is so profound that it is impossible for taxpayers to substantially reduce our enormous national debt – using current government taxation and spending methods and powers?
Click to expand...

We could reduce it but no one wants to give an inch.
 
Catawba said:
SS has a 2.6 trillion dollar surplus. I was trying to get you to discover this on your own.
Click to expand...

Prove it? You call an IOU a surplus? How do those IOU's get funded? Taxing the rich?
 
Conservative said:
Prove it? You call an IOU a surplus? How do those IOU's get funded? Taxing the rich?
Click to expand...

If you deposit a check in the bank, does it just disappear? Is your bank account just an IOU?
 
AdamT said:
Yes, that sounds logical, but in reality it isn't the case. Medicare and VA costs per patient are not much different than costs for those using private insurance. If anything they are lower.

If you're thinking that these folks are going to be paying for their health care out of their own pockets, think again. 99.9% of the people in this country would go bankrupt if they came down with a serious illness and didn't have insurance.

The answer to this problem is so painfully obvious. Our per capita costs are DOUBLE what other advanced countries pay. Other advanced countries ALL employ single payer in one form or another. 2 + 2 = ?
Click to expand...

Did I say completely and utterly remove medicare or the like, no I didn't.
It's completely disingenuous to conflate what I said with that.

Reducing/cutting spending does not mean obliterate it's existence.
Greater cost sharing by users is a good way to reign in out of control programs.
 
AdamT said:
If you deposit a check in the bank, does it just disappear? Is your bank account just an IOU?
Click to expand...

Try collecting 2.5 trillion in IOU's and see how that works out for you. Amazing that you would continue to support the failures of liberalism
 
Removable Mind said:
By all logic and reason - how can we conclude anything other than the reality that our nation’s income/debt ratio is so profound that it is impossible for taxpayers to substantially reduce our enormous national debt – using current government taxation and spending methods and powers?
Click to expand...

What is your alternative?
 
Catawba said:
Most of our debt is do to excessive military spending and optional wars that I didn't approve, should I be able to say I don't want to pay for that?

As a US citizen, you (for your share of taxes) are responsible to pay US debts.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.
Most of our total debt is from a multitude of reasons.
Your anti Republican/pro Democrat mantra can not get past the talking points.

Sorry, I don't take loans out in the names of my children, it's a morally corrupt practice.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Did I say completely and utterly remove medicare or the like, no I didn't.
It's completely disingenuous to conflate what I said with that.

Reducing/cutting spending does not mean obliterate it's existence.
Greater cost sharing by users is a good way to reign in out of control programs.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it would help. But as I said, it's also just shifting the cost onto someone else. If you cut my taxes by $100, and at the same time eliminate $100 of necessary services, it ain't all that.
 
Catawba said:
You forgot to factor in the 2.6 trillion dollars owed to SS by the general fund.
Click to expand...

Technically speaking, those are future liabilities, so they aren't responsible for any debt we've incurred thus far; however, in the event those special-issue Treasury Securities are redeemed, they will have to be financed with debt or tax revenues.

Please cite your source that shows SS is responsible for any of the National Debt.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by this. It's a simple matter of arithmetic and finance. If you spend more money than you make, you'll need to borrow money in order to cover the shortfall. Each budgetary item's responsibility for the debt is, therefore, directly proportional to its percentage of overall expenditures. Like I said in my previous example, if you make $5 in wages and you spend $5 on food and $5 on water, you'll need to borrow $5 in order to make up the shortfall. Simple arithmetic will tell you that food is responsible for 50% of your debt and that water is responsible for the other 50%. The only way this would not be the case is if you assigned quantitatively based priorities to each budgetary item and calculated their responsibility for the debt on that basis. The reason why this wouldn't apply to the current debate is due to the subjective nature of assigning these priorities. For instance, you might maintain that SS is a higher priority than military spending, whereas Zyphlin might maintain that military spending is a higher priority than SS. Ultimately, though, there is no definitive way to determine who is right, so the only equitable way to assign responsibility is to do it on a directly proportional basis.

Brian
 
Conservative said:
Try collecting 2.5 trillion in IOU's and see how that works out for you. Amazing that you would continue to support the failures of liberalism
Click to expand...

If treasuries are no good you might as well just tear up your check book and all your other accounts, because they're not worth the paper they're written on.

What is the difference between SS backed by treasuries and SS backed by a warehouse full of cash money?

A: there is no difference. Treasuries are as good (or bad) as cash.

Amazing that you would continue to support the failures of conservatism and blind hyperpartisanship.
 
As usual with Obama, Delivery was an A, Content a C or D.
 
Conservative said:
Prove it? You call an IOU a surplus? How do those IOU's get funded? Taxing the rich?
Click to expand...

Since the tax cuts required us to dip into the SS funds in the first place, where else should it logically come from?
 
AdamT said:
I'm sure it would help. But as I said, it's also just shifting the cost onto someone else. If you cut my taxes by $100, and at the same time eliminate $100 of necessary services, it ain't all that.
Click to expand...

Necessary services is a nebulous term.
Food is necessary but I pay my entire food bill.

Just because something is necessary, doesn't mean a person can't afford to pay it, without a government program.
We're talking about greater cost sharing, not total elimination.

Increasing Medicare cost sharing, with higher monthly premium payments and greater co pays isn't exactly Armageddon.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Necessary services is a nebulous term.
Food is necessary but I pay my entire food bill.

Just because something is necessary, doesn't mean a person can't afford to pay it, without a government program.
We're talking about greater cost sharing, not total elimination.

Increasing Medicare cost sharing, with higher monthly premium payments and greater co pays isn't exactly Armageddon.
Click to expand...

Cost sharing = cost shifting = the same amount of spending with different payers.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Greater cost sharing by users is a good way to reign in out of control programs.
Click to expand...

You mean something like......................medicare? Good idea! Putting everyone on a cost sharing program like medicare is how every other industrialized nation has cut their health care cost in half.
 
Catawba said:
SS has a 2.6 trillion dollar surplus.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're gravely mistaken. The SS "trust fund" consists of special-issue Treasury Securities that, if redeemed, have to be financed with debt or new tax revenues. In essence, they are nothing more than IOUs issued by the Federal government to the Federal government. That's why it's considered "intragovernmental debt".

I was trying to get you to discover this on your own.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your attempt to educate me, but I'm quite familiar with the finances of our government.

Brian
 
Catawba said:
You mean something like......................medicare? Good idea! Putting everyone on a cost sharing program like medicare is how every other industrialized nation has cut their health care cost in half.
Click to expand...

No.
I mean making Medicare beneficiaries, pay more for their services, that they use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom