• 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!

IMF chief says U.S. needs blend of spending cuts, revenue raising

Hairytic said:
They are sustainable until 2033. If we get busy now shoring up SS, it is fixable. The question is, how do we fix it. I like means testing for a start. There are a lot of options, but we need to take action now.
Click to expand...
Means testing is a cut. It can't be fixed without cuts.
 
Hairytic said:
When the US government makes a promise to the people, the people should expect that promise to be honored.
Click to expand...

That's what their saying in Greece and Spain. The problem is they over-promised, same here they promised entitlements but it was never funded properly.


As for programs for the poor, that money gets spent. There is a study that shows for every dollar spent on food stamps, the return on that back to the government is $1.40.
Click to expand...

Do I understand you correctly, for every dollar the government gives you to buy food, the government get back $1.40. So if that's the case, then if the government gave every person a $1,000 they get back $1,400. So under that logic we should have the strongest economy ever in US History. Obama borrowed and spent 6 trillion in just 4 yrs and will borrow and spend another 4+ trillion in the next 4 yrs for a whopping 10 trillion in just 8 yrs. Thus Obama will receive the 10 trillion back plus 4 trillion in profit.


Ending SNAP would cause needless suffering and harm the economy. Do we really want to be a nation that allows our poor, disabled and children to starve?
Click to expand...

Maybe you can site one person in this country that has starved to death in the streets, that was not a suicide or a murder.

Do we want to be the kind of nation that allows people to be in poor health and die without medical care simply because they can't afford to pay for it? That is not the way I want American to be. I think it is important to invest in our citizens and in the long run we will have a stronger healthier workforce.
Click to expand...

We all love your generosity with other peoples money, have you forgot we are 16+ trillion in debt and under Obama we'll be over 20+ trillion in the next 4 yrs. Would it not be nice to be able to take care of every person in the world. Or do you draw the line with just illegals and US citizens. Surly you want to provide all the things you quoted to illegals here in this country. And if your willing to provide all this free stuff to illegals how about all the people in the world that have obeyed our laws that need help? Would they not come first over a person that has broke our laws?

Let me rephrase your comment:
Do we want to be the kind of nation that allows people of the world to be in poor health and die without medical care because they can't afford to pay for it?
 
donsutherland1 said:
I don't believe any serious political leader would eliminate Social Security. For all its challenges, the Program has made an important contribution in reducing the incidence of poverty among older Americans.

The Program faces big challenges on account of the nation's demographics (increasing share of the population comprised by people eligible for Social Security coupled with a lengthening life span of people eligible for Social Security meaning more people receive Social Security for a longer period). Determining how to fully fund the Program's anticipated payouts is a relatively straightforward actuarial exercise. Modest reforms can address Social Security's actuarial imbalances.

The health-related programs continue to drive the largest part of the nation's imbalances. Perhaps the leading challenge involved is finding an effective approach to slow the growth in medical expenditures, something that was largely outside the scope of the Affordable Care Act for which the primary goal was expanded health coverage, though CBO estimates some measure of savings albeit far short of what would be needed to eliminate the nation's long-term health-related imbalances. Medical expenditures cannot continue to grow at a multiple of the economy indefinitely, as foreign creditors won't be willing to pick up a growing share of those costs via financing U.S. deficits without the nation's debt stabilizing and then falling as a share of GDP over the longer-term. Numerous factors including debt-related risks, the need to tap savings countries such as Japan (aging + own debt challenges), and opportunities to earn attractive returns from growing economies outside the U.S., among other factors, could temper the flow of such funds to the U.S. in medium- and longer-term.

Until the issue concerning rapid growth in medical expenditures in the U.S. is resolved--and it's highly complex--public and private health care policies will either become more expensive (premiums/other costs rising faster than incomes grow), offer less coverage (procedures, pharmaceutical products, and/or technologies), and/or run imbalances. The challenge involved extends beyond Medicare/Medicaid Program design. A disproportionate share of medical cost increases also arise from hospital care, not physician appointments or medical supplies. The growing utilization and high cost of long-term care (e.g., at nursing homes) is also an emerging factor and has implications for Medicaid. These challenges need to be addressed comprehensively and objectively.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that we have many challenges that need to be addressed. I see Obamacare as a good start. We have been needing to address the health care problem for a long time now. Medical costs rise, hospitals can't turn people away so the government pays for the uninsured to be treated at a high cost. By providing preventative care and less expensive care at doctors offices and clinics will bring down the cost the tax payers pitch in. It will also create a stronger more productive workforce. I can also see that providing health care, as much as possible, to our citizens will lower the crime rate and drug use. There are a lot of people who self medicate for depression and that leads to a whole host of socital issues.
When people start talking about cutting spending, its not a matter of just cutting spending. There are things we must spend on in order to have a better return later. For example, when making out a personal budget, you wouldn't cut your spending on gas because then you wouldn't be able to get to work to bring in more revenue. I think so many people fail to see how that is an important part of this debate.
As for Social Security, there are many fixes, but job growth will be a huge factor in the programs sustainability. We have about 20 years to fix it, so I'm all for getting that conversation going. So yes, these challenges do need to be addressed comprehensively and objectively. We need to view the issues from all sides to find the best solutions.
 
I said so before, and will say again.

I would not trust the IMF with cleaning my boots now that winter is here and they need cleaning. I wouldn't trust them with washing my car. They are a bunch of gangsters who take money from people and then loan it back to them for interest. They are a bunch of bullies who bully nations into doing what they want in order for them to receive more of their own money which the people have been forced, by treaty, to give to the IMF freely. They are also incompetent because every prediction they made, unless it was a doom and gloom one, was innacurate. Everytime they said that they turned a corner and things are looking up, they have been discredited by reality. Everybody who is anybody and works in the IMF need to be shot.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is all well and good but you must be willing to pay taxes for this. The absurd idea now being advanced by the left is that only "the rich" will be taxed "a bit more" to fund this mess. If your food stamp "investment" nonsense were true then why not give them to everyone? Taking a dollar from citizen A to give it to citizen B does not create $1.40 in gov't revenue.
Click to expand...

We have had a progressive income tax system for as long as I have been a live and longer. Over the past few decades the rich have increased their wealth because of investments the masses have made on infrastructure via the tax system. Those who benefit most from that investment should pay more. They are basically paying it forward like their parents and grandparents did before them. That is how we insure that our future generations will have an infrastructure they can thrive with. I don't see why this is such a big issue now. Insisting that the welathy class should get larger tax brakes makes no sense.
We can not continue to be a great nation if we do not invest in our people, and our youth should have the same opportunities their parents and grandparents had, it not more opportunities. Our economy can not sustain much longer if our middle class continues to shrink. We will eventually become a nation of rich and poor and nothing in between the two.
 
Hairytic said:
We have had a progressive income tax system for as long as I have been a live and longer. Over the past few decades the rich have increased their wealth because of investments the masses have made on infrastructure via the tax system. Those who benefit most from that investment should pay more. They are basically paying it forward like their parents and grandparents did before them. That is how we insure that our future generations will have an infrastructure they can thrive with. I don't see why this is such a big issue now. Insisting that the welathy class should get larger tax brakes makes no sense.
We can not continue to be a great nation if we do not invest in our people, and our youth should have the same opportunities their parents and grandparents had, it not more opportunities. Our economy can not sustain much longer if our middle class continues to shrink. We will eventually become a nation of rich and poor and nothing in between the two.
Click to expand...

Show me the "infrastructure" that you presume we are spending the bulk of our our taxes on. In the massive Obama "stimulus" spending, less than 6% went to what I would call "infrastructure".
 
Taylor said:
Means testing is a cut. It can't be fixed without cuts.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with cuts if they are reasonable and preserves the system for future generations. What I oppose is cutting the program to the point of bankrupting it. I also don't think its a good idea to privitize it.
When a surgeon opperates, he/she will not just pick up a scalpel and start cutting the patient up in pieces. Cuts need to be stratigic and well thought out to bring about sustainability.
 
Born Free said:
That's what their saying in Greece and Spain. The problem is they over-promised, same here they promised entitlements but it was never funded properly.




Do I understand you correctly, for every dollar the government gives you to buy food, the government get back $1.40. So if that's the case, then if the government gave every person a $1,000 they get back $1,400. So under that logic we should have the strongest economy ever in US History. Obama borrowed and spent 6 trillion in just 4 yrs and will borrow and spend another 4+ trillion in the next 4 yrs for a whopping 10 trillion in just 8 yrs. Thus Obama will receive the 10 trillion back plus 4 trillion in profit.




Maybe you can site one person in this country that has starved to death in the streets, that was not a suicide or a murder.



We all love your generosity with other peoples money, have you forgot we are 16+ trillion in debt and under Obama we'll be over 20+ trillion in the next 4 yrs. Would it not be nice to be able to take care of every person in the world. Or do you draw the line with just illegals and US citizens. Surly you want to provide all the things you quoted to illegals here in this country. And if your willing to provide all this free stuff to illegals how about all the people in the world that have obeyed our laws that need help? Would they not come first over a person that has broke our laws?

Let me rephrase your comment:
Do we want to be the kind of nation that allows people of the world to be in poor health and die without medical care because they can't afford to pay for it?
Click to expand...

Why bring up Greece and Spain? There are plenty of other countries that have a system like ours that are thriving, like Germany. I don't see that we over promised anything. There needs to be an adjustment made to social security to compensate for the baby boomers, and when the unemployment rate goes down, it will strengthen the SS system.

When the government issues food stamps, that money gets spent on food which provides employment for stores that provide the food and in turn provides wealth for farmers. Everyone who makes money throug the process pays income taxes which brings the revenue back to the government. Take that spending away and you will see a higher unemployment rate and farmers will need higher substadies to stay in opperation.

Before we had food stamps, a great number of people died during the great depression and dust bowl from starvation. No one starves now because we do have food stamp programs. My point is that if you end food stamps and free or reduced lunches for children in schools, families and children will suffer. Why would we want to let that happen?

There are many ways to address the debt probloem in this country. Cutting out vital programs that people depend on to survive isn't a good policy. I believe we must take care of our own first. You put up an irrational argument. We can't solve the worlds problems before we solve our own first. Yes, it would be nice to end suffering world wide, but we can't do that. We have to start at home and that may inspire the rest of the world to do the same. But, we can't just sit back and watch US citizens starve or go without life saving medical care. IF we do that, then we have nothing to be proud of.
 
Hairytic said:
We have had a progressive income tax system for as long as I have been a live and longer. Over the past few decades the rich have increased their wealth because of investments the masses have made on infrastructure via the tax system. Those who benefit most from that investment should pay more. They are basically paying it forward like their parents and grandparents did before them. That is how we insure that our future generations will have an infrastructure they can thrive with. I don't see why this is such a big issue now. Insisting that the welathy class should get larger tax brakes makes no sense.
We can not continue to be a great nation if we do not invest in our people, and our youth should have the same opportunities their parents and grandparents had, it not more opportunities. Our economy can not sustain much longer if our middle class continues to shrink. We will eventually become a nation of rich and poor and nothing in between the two.
Click to expand...

So good, Obama wants to raise the taxes on the rich which will generate around 800 billion over ten yrs. However Obama is borrowing 1.2 trillion a yr adding to our national debt. Thus if he gets his tax hikes he will only have to borrow 1.1 trillion a yr. Now where do you suppose to get all this money to eliminate Obama's over spending of 1.1 trillion a yr, and where are you going to get the money on top of that to start paying down our debt.

All I hear in your progressive liberal post is, if we want to be a great nation we have to invest and make everyone healthy, no one dies without the best of medical care, no poor in the streets, give as much food stamp money out to everyone because for every dollar Obama gives out he get back $1.40, increase anyone's welfare check for the same reason, big reward on increasing the number on welfare. Now I know you want to also take care of all the illegal and the rest of the world because they can't pay for the best of care. This is all "if we want to be a great nation"
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Show me the "infrastructure" that you presume we are spending the bulk of our our taxes on. In the massive Obama "stimulus" spending, less than 6% went to what I would call "infrastructure".
Click to expand...

I didn't say the bulk of taxes is spent on the infrastructure, however, that infrastructure has been provided by tax money. Businesses could not thrive like they do now if we didn't have roads, bridges, the internet and a whole host of other systems in place. The stimulus was given to the states to spend on construction projects. I'm not sure what you call "Infrastructure", I see it as everything the US government has developed and built so that the people could progress and thrive. That includes everything from electicity in all homes and phone lines to dams and highways. All these things have been provided by past generations through tax money, and it is this generations obligation to provide these things for future generations.
 
Born Free said:
So good, Obama wants to raise the taxes on the rich which will generate around 800 billion over ten yrs. However Obama is borrowing 1.2 trillion a yr adding to our national debt. Thus if he gets his tax hikes he will only have to borrow 1.1 trillion a yr. Now where do you suppose to get all this money to eliminate Obama's over spending of 1.1 trillion a yr, and where are you going to get the money on top of that to start paying down our debt.

All I hear in your progressive liberal post is, if we want to be a great nation we have to invest and make everyone healthy, no one dies without the best of medical care, no poor in the streets, give as much food stamp money out to everyone because for every dollar Obama gives out he get back $1.40, increase anyone's welfare check for the same reason, big reward on increasing the number on welfare. Now I know you want to also take care of all the illegal and the rest of the world because they can't pay for the best of care. This is all "if we want to be a great nation"
Click to expand...

You carry this debate to a rediculous level. I guess we will have to just agree to disagree. Also, I never mentioned illegals or the US taking up the role of the world's savior.
Have a good day.
 
Hairytic said:
Why bring up Greece and Spain? There are plenty of other countries that have a system like ours that are thriving, like Germany. I don't see that we over promised anything. There needs to be an adjustment made to social security to compensate for the baby boomers, and when the unemployment rate goes down, it will strengthen the SS system.
Click to expand...

If you have to make adjustments, then you over promised. And when the unemployment rate goes down, and when will that be. Our work force has greatly diminished, (less people working) when you have more people leaving the work force than are hired our work force continues to diminish in size.

When the government issues food stamps, that money gets spent on food which provides employment for stores that provide the food and in turn provides wealth for farmers. Everyone who makes money throug the process pays income taxes which brings the revenue back to the government. Take that spending away and you will see a higher unemployment rate and farmers will need higher substadies to stay in opperation.
Click to expand...

That's right when the government gives out $1.00 it get a $1.40 back. Geeeee what planet are you on?

Before we had food stamps, a great number of people died during the great depression and dust bowl from starvation. No one starves now because we do have food stamp programs. My point is that if you end food stamps and free or reduced lunches for children in schools, families and children will suffer. Why would we want to let that happen?
Click to expand...

Please, provide proof or evidence when a person died of starvation in this country, when it was not a suicide or murder.

There are many ways to address the debt probloem in this country. Cutting out vital programs that people depend on to survive isn't a good policy. I believe we must take care of our own first. You put up an irrational argument. We can't solve the worlds problems before we solve our own first. Yes, it would be nice to end suffering world wide, but we can't do that. We have to start at home and that may inspire the rest of the world to do the same. But, we can't just sit back and watch US citizens starve or go without life saving medical care. IF we do that, then we have nothing to be proud of.
Click to expand...

Liberal BS, I already said Obama is borrowing 1.2 trillion a yr, and with his tax hikes on the rich that will generate 800 billion over ten yrs. Thus Obama will have to borrow 1.1 trillion every yr. So what are you going to cut to make up for the 1.1 trillion to balance the budget, and what are you going to cut to be able to start paying down the debt?
 
Hairytic said:
I didn't say the bulk of taxes is spent on the infrastructure, however, that infrastructure has been provided by tax money. Businesses could not thrive like they do now if we didn't have roads, bridges, the internet and a whole host of other systems in place. The stimulus was given to the states to spend on construction projects. I'm not sure what you call "Infrastructure", I see it as everything the US government has developed and built so that the people could progress and thrive. That includes everything from electicity in all homes and phone lines to dams and highways. All these things have been provided by past generations through tax money, and it is this generations obligation to provide these things for future generations.
Click to expand...

If most, if not all, of that "infrastucture" already existed then what is all of this new Obama spending about? The bulk of it was to bailout unions, state/local gov'ts, "invest" in green energy and support exactly what Obama blamed Bush for doing. Yes he did!
 
Hairytic said:
You carry this debate to a rediculous level. I guess we will have to just agree to disagree. Also, I never mentioned illegals or the US taking up the role of the world's savior.
Have a good day.
Click to expand...

Yes I see you could not answer this very basic question. I quote.

"So good, Obama wants to raise the taxes on the rich which will generate around 800 billion over ten yrs. However Obama is borrowing 1.2 trillion a yr adding to our national debt. Thus if he gets his tax hikes he will only have to borrow 1.1 trillion a yr. Now where do you suppose to get all this money to eliminate Obama's over spending of 1.1 trillion a yr, and where are you going to get the money on top of that to start paying down our debt."

The reason you can't answer it is because you have no clue. But the real reason is because liberals think there is no end to the money supply. What is ridiculous is you liberals have no clue how to pay for anything, except raise taxes, but the problem is that does not generate enough money to even make a dent in the 1.2 trillion a yr deficit.

Yep another liberal with free stuff for everyone, who could care less how to pay for it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If most, if not all, of that "infrastucture" already existed then what is all of this new Obama spending about? The bulk of it was to bailout unions, state/local gov'ts, "invest" in green energy and support exactly what Obama blamed Bush for doing. Yes he did!
Click to expand...

That "existing" infrastucture was built with Govt. money starting with FDR's stimulus programs in the 1930's. It's like you don't know that stuff gets old and needs repair. We have been neglecting our infrastucture since Reagan and it is because of politicians who didn't care or think about it. They prefered tax cuts instead.
 
iguanaman said:
That "existing" infrastucture was built with Govt. money starting with FDR's stimulus programs in the 1930's. It's like you don't know that stuff gets old and needs repair. We have been neglecting our infrastucture since Reagan and it is because of politicians who didn't care or think about it. They prefered tax cuts instead.
Click to expand...

Again, show me what "infrastructure" Obama has funded with his massive 20% increase in federal spending.
 
Boo Radley said:
Neither needs to be first or second. Have them put on their big girl panties and do both at the same time.
Click to expand...

They did, but perhaps not well. It is what we now call the "fiscal cliff" - real tax increases and spending cuts. :roll:
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Again, show me what "infrastructure" Obama has funded with his massive 20% increase in federal spending.
Click to expand...

There has been no 20% increase in spending since Bush's 2009 budget. The House has blocked any further infrastucture spending since the stimulus.
 
iguanaman said:
There has been no 20% increase in spending since Bush's 2009 budget. The House has blocked any further infrastucture spending since the stimulus.
Click to expand...

The 2008/2009 federal spending increase included the "one time", crisis, emergency TARP and stimulus 1 spending (and was 20% more than in 2007), that elevated level of federal spending has been maintained, by continuing reslolution, in each subsequent Obama year. Obama and the MSM can lie and state that Obama never "increased" federal spending but that does not make it so.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
 
Hairytic said:
I don't have a problem with cuts if they are reasonable and preserves the system for future generations. What I oppose is cutting the program to the point of bankrupting it. I also don't think its a good idea to privitize it.
Click to expand...
Neither political party wants to bankrupt it.
Hairytic said:
When a surgeon opperates, he/she will not just pick up a scalpel and start cutting the patient up in pieces. Cuts need to be stratigic and well thought out to bring about sustainability.
Click to expand...
Unless the problem has progressed to the point where they simply take the whole leg or arm or anything to keep the person from dying.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Again, show me what "infrastructure" Obama has funded with his massive 20% increase in federal spending.
Click to expand...

"Recessions cause deficits, deficits don't cause recessions!" and I draw your attention to the "GWShiiteForBrains" great recession that Obama inherited. Bailouts, bailouts and more bailouts and they all cost money. A huge domino effect that is still causing some problems. The $2 trillion in tax cuts and a couple of trillion for unfunded wars might still be a problem. How's things in the bubble? Eh?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
They did, but perhaps not well. It is what we now call the "fiscal cliff" - real tax increases and spending cuts. :roll:
Click to expand...

It is an option. And while painful, we will survive. There is no real way to cut spending and not lose jobs. Odd that Obama will be called on to do this and then be blamed for unemployment numbers. Still, this is an option.
 
Boo Radley said:
It is an option. And while painful, we will survive. There is no real way to cut spending and not lose jobs. Odd that Obama will be called on to do this and then be blamed for unemployment numbers. Still, this is an option.
Click to expand...

The jobs that should be "lost" are the useless gov't leeches that simply waste money. Private employment will bounce back once the gov't allows it to. Gov't spending for income redistribution must be brought under control, constricting regulations rolled back to a minumum and taxation policy reformed to remove the social engineering and crony capitalism that has been allowed to permeate the tax code.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The jobs that should be "lost" are the useless gov't leeches that simply waste money. Private employment will bounce back once the gov't allows it to. Gov't spending for income redistribution must be brought under control, constricting regulations rolled back to a minumum and taxation policy reformed to remove the social engineering and crony capitalism that has been allowed to permeate the tax code.
Click to expand...

it doesn't matte much to those who lose them. Unemployed is unemployed. And there is no evidence the private sector is bouncing back. Nor are regulations as much to blame as some like to pretend. The fact is people elsewhere work for a lot less. And they don't have healthcare attached to employment (They have UHC). So, as much as some like to think all would be fixed this way, it won't. Most those people are not leeches, but workers doing a job. You may not want that job done, but it is a job and requires work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom