• 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!

White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source

pugetsoundwa said:
Taxes are not too high. At 35% they are at near record lows. Even if they go back to Clinton era rates of 39.6% they will still be lower then most of our past..Taxes are a weak excuse for failures to blame something or someone other then themselves for not being a success...
Click to expand...

I actually think corporate taxes are a bit high and I think the multi million dollar bonses for investment bankers is way to low.
 
Goobieman said:
First, eliminate the spending that provides people the means to exercise their rights. If anything is needed after that, then cut anything that does not go directly towards protecting the rights of the people.
Click to expand...

Huh? Those sound identical to me. What kind of spending are you referring to, when you say spending that provides people the means to exercise their rights? Military and police? :confused:

I'm assuming that's not what you mean (although I really don't know what you *do* mean), so when you say "eliminate" this spending is it politically/economically realistic? If not, then you aren't actually thinking about the issue, and how it can realistically be improved. If I want to read what life would be like in Ronpaultopia, I can read Atlas Shrugged instead of your forum posts.
 
Kandahar said:
Huh? Those sound identical to me. What kind of spending are you referring to, when you say spending that provides people the means to exercise their rights? Military and police? :confused:

I'm assuming that's not what you mean (although I really don't know what you *do* mean), so when you say "eliminate" this spending is it politically/economically realistic? If not, then you aren't actually thinking about the issue, and how it can realistically be improved. If I want to read what life would be like in Ronpaultopia, I can read Atlas Shrugged instead of your forum posts.
Click to expand...


I would suggest that you do indeed read Atlas Shrugged, as well as Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin. You may just learn something.


j-mac
 
Kandahar said:
Huh? Those sound identical to me. What kind of spending are you referring to, when you say spending that provides people the means to exercise their rights? Military and police? :confused:
Click to expand...
Spending that provides people the means to exercise their rights should be plain.
Spending that does not go towards protecting the rights of the people would include things like international/foreign aid, subsidies to R&B of various technolgies, NASA, etc.

so when you say "eliminate" this spending is it politically/economically realistic?
Click to expand...
If you tie "politically realistic" to spending cuts, then there isn't ANY spending that can be cut, and so you're asking a question that cannot be answered.
 
j-mac said:
I would suggest that you do indeed read Atlas Shrugged, as well as Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin. You may just learn something.
Click to expand...

Already read Atlas Shrugged...twice. I thought it was awesome when I was a senior in high school. Then I re-read it a couple years ago and realized how laughably ridiculous it really is, both from a philosophical and a literary perspective.
 
Goobieman said:
Spending that provides people the means to exercise their rights should be plain.
Spending that does not go towards protecting the rights of the people would include things like international/foreign aid, subsidies to R&B of various technolgies, NASA, etc.
Click to expand...

I'm not following you. How do foreign aid and NASA help people exercise their rights? :confused:

Goobieman said:
If you tie "politically realistic" to spending cuts, then there isn't ANY spending that can be cut, and so you're asking a question that cannot be answered.
Click to expand...

If you believe that then you aren't actually interested in solving the problem. You'd much rather deliver angry utopian rants than try to come up with solutions. Here are a few of my suggestions to balance the budget, that AREN'T as politically ridiculous as "Eliminate all entitlement spending tomorrow":

1. Set up an independent commission to set prices/benefits for Medicare and Medicaid, instead of letting Congress do it.
2. Gradually raise the retirement age for social security, starting no earlier than 2020.
3. Tax incentives for people to have individual/catastrophic health insurance plans, and disincentives for people to have group/comprehensive health insurance plans.
4. Make social security means-tested. It was supposed to be an anti-poverty program, not a source of retirement for every elderly person regardless of income.
5. Raise the top income tax rate a couple percentage points, starting no earlier than 2012.
6. Set up an independent commission to examine wasteful spending in the Department of Defense, and require an up-or-down vote on their recommendations from Congress.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
I'm not following you. How do foreign aid and NASA help people exercise their rights? :confused:
Click to expand...
These would be examples of spending that does not provide people the means to exercise their rights, but also does not go to protecting the rights of the people.

If you believe that then you aren't actually interested in solving the problem.
Click to expand...
As I said -- If you tie "politically realistic" to spending cuts, then there isn't ANY spending that can be cut, and so you're asking a question that cannot be answered.
Given that -- neither are you.
 
Kandahar said:
"Cut spending" is a two-cent answer. I'm asking what spending you would cut and how, given political and economic realities (as opposed to how things would be in Ronpaultopia). And don't say "all of it." That's just stupid.
Click to expand...

Tell all people under thirty that they're not going to be eligible for Socialist Security, since that Ponzi Scheme is unconstitutional and will be phased out. Tell people under fifty that they have plenty of time under the new rules to plan for their retirements, and they're going to be means tested for benefits, and they really should aim at building up a nice greedy nest egg because even if they do qualify for a Socialist Security check, it ain't gonna be much. Adjust taxes so the program is solvent until it's termination, then eliminate the taxes.

Progressively fire government workers as the work load decreases.

Unfortunately, a disease that takes 70 years to metastasize isn't going to get cured overnight.

That will take care of close to 50% of the current US budget.

While this is in progress, identify and cut the other unconstitutional socialist programs. Education should be funded by the local and state governments, if a state is foolish enough to believe it has a responsibility to provide education.

If someone wants to exercise his freedom to not have insurance, he can be allowed to exercise his freedom to die. He does not, and never has had, the freedom to demand strangers pay for his care. No government subsidies of health care.

No government subsidies of practically anything that's not allowed in the Constitution. Oil exploration, farming, HIV free needles for stupid people, etc. None of that should be paid for with taxpayer dollars. Just in case people don't realize it, the taxpayer usually can think of something to do with is money, without any help from the Nanny Socialists.
 
Kandahar said:
1. Set up an independent commission to set prices/benefits for Medicare and Medicaid, instead of letting Congress do it.
Click to expand...

Better yet, phase out this waste-ridden inefficient example of the failure of government when it interferes in the free market.

Kandahar said:
2. Gradually raise the retirement age for social security, starting no earlier than 2020.
Click to expand...

Yes. Advance the retirement age two years for every year that passes after 2020.

That'll save TONS of money, and the way the government has been printing money lately, that's how money will be measured by 2020. And we all love and trust our government to make sure our investments will be fat and happy, just like in 2008.

Kandahar said:
3. Tax incentives for people to have individual/catastrophic health insurance plans, and disincentives for people to have group/comprehensive health insurance plans.
Click to expand...

Better yet, get the government out of the micromanipulation social engineering nonsense and don't let the tax code even see what kind of health coverage anyone has.

Kandahar said:
4. Make social security means-tested. It was supposed to be an anti-poverty program, not a source of retirement for every elderly person regardless of income.
Click to expand...

Until it's phased out completely. Don't forget that part.

Kandahar said:
5. Raise the top income tax rate a couple percentage points, starting no earlier than 2012.
Click to expand...

You have some perverse desire to shut the economy down?

Kandahar said:
6. Set up an independent commission to examine wasteful spending in the Department of Defense, and require an up-or-down vote on their recommendations from Congress.
Click to expand...

Yes, ONLY the DoD. Don't let the government look at Medicare/Medicaid, with a $50B estimated waste in 2009, don't look at the Dept of Education, fraught with waste and useless programs, don't look at the Depts of Energy, Veterans Affairs, Interior, etc etc etc,. ONLY the DoD has waste, we all know this to be true.

Right?:confused:
 
Let us examine YOUR suggestions, thru the filters you specified.

Kandahar said:
1. Set up an independent commission to set prices/benefits for Medicare and Medicaid, instead of letting Congress do it.
Click to expand...
Politically impossible. Congress will never do this.

2. Gradually raise the retirement age for social security, starting no earlier than 2020.
Click to expand...
Can you show that this will provide any meaningful savings?
And what about the negative consequences for doing so?
Will the AARP ever allow such a thing?

3. Tax incentives for people to have individual/catastrophic health insurance plans, and disincentives for people to have group/comprehensive health insurance plans.
Click to expand...
Can you show that this will provide any meaningful savings?
And what about the negative consequences for doing so?

4. Make social security means-tested. It was supposed to be an anti-poverty program, not a source of retirement for every elderly person regardless of income.
Click to expand...
Do those that are means-tested out have to pay into the system?
If the answer is no, will the AARP ever allow such a thing?

5. Raise the top income tax rate a couple percentage points, starting no earlier than 2012.
Click to expand...
Can you show that this will provide any meaningful savings?
And what about the negative consequences for doing so?

6. Set up an independent commission to examine wasteful spending in the Department of Defense.... and Social Security and Medicare and medicaid and all other spending programs... and require an up-or-down vote on their recommendations from Congress
Click to expand...
Politically impossible. Congress will never do this.
 
Last edited:
The United States government should have a special division that does nothing except audit the other agencies, and the books and the audits of all non-national security related agencies should be accessible to any citizen with internet access.

The Federal Reserve should be subject to this auditing commission, first and foremost. The finances of all Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, Department Heads, and their spouses, should be part of this annual audit, and accessible.

That's what needs to be done if we want to control the rampant corruption in our government.

Oh, and all criminal activity found must be presented to the Justice Department for prosecution.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The United States government should have a special division that does nothing except audit the other agencies, and the books and the audits of all non-national security related agencies should be accessible to any citizen with internet access.

The Federal Reserve should be subject to this auditing commission, first and foremost. The finances of all Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, Department Heads, and their spouses, should be part of this annual audit, and accessible.

That's what needs to be done if we want to control the rampant corruption in our government.

Oh, and all criminal activity found must be presented to the Justice Department for prosecution.
Click to expand...


I agree. However, the first thing to be audited should be the FED.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I agree. However, the first thing to be audited should be the FED.


j-mac
Click to expand...

The Fed is already audited.... Do you propose we have it audited by the congress? :rofl the same people you claim to be socialist incompetents?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The Fed is already audited.... Do you propose we have it audited by the congress? :rofl the same people you claim to be socialist incompetents?
Click to expand...


Would the light be a scary thing for you?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Would the light be a scary thing for you?


j-mac
Click to expand...

The light? All it will do is give congress (the same group of politicians you constantly talk against) some political power in regards to monetary policy. Now if we cannot trust them (regardless of political party) to cut spending because they fear it will cost them an election, how can you trust them with the keys to the printing press?

:lamo
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The light? All it will do is give congress (the same group of politicians you constantly talk against) some political power in regards to monetary policy. Now if we cannot trust them (regardless of political party) to cut spending because they fear it will cost them an election, how can you trust them with the keys to the printing press?

:lamo
Click to expand...


Why don't you be honest here. I said nothing of giving them control of the Fed, I said audit it. Open the books and let us see where the money is going for real. Now, would you like to argue that this shouldn't happen?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Why don't you be honest here. I said nothing of giving them control of the Fed, I said audit it. Open the books and let us see where the money is going for real. Now, would you like to argue that this shouldn't happen?


j-mac
Click to expand...

From the horses mouth:
In an exchange with Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) during Bernanke's closely watched confirmation hearing, the chairman noted the Fed is already subject to periodic audits by the Government Accountability Office. He said attempts to extend that oversight to include monetary policy -- which Congress exempted from the GAO's purview in 1978 -- would only jeopardize the Fed's central mission.

"I believe Congress should have all the information it needs about the Fed Reserve's operations... to have appropriate oversight...," Bernanke told lawmakers.

So, to be very very clear... I welcome transparency," the chairman added. "I am, however, concerned with the auditing of monetary policy. What that means is that the GAO would be empowered... to look at all the policy materials prepared by staff, to interview members, and to basically second guess the Federal Reserve's decision in short order with very few protections."
Click to expand...

But here is the true concern:
Bernanke explained those rules could permit lawmakers to order audits whenever the Fed made monetary policy decisions that were politically unpopular or ineffective in the short term, which would hamstring the Fed's capabilities to manage the dollar.
Click to expand...

Now you can argue with the Fed Chairman. :2wave:

source
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Now if we cannot trust them (regardless of political party) to cut spending because they fear it will cost them an election, how can you trust them with the keys to the printing press?
Click to expand...
Congress already has this control.

Article I Sec 8:5
Congress shall have the power...
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
 
Goobieman said:
Congress already has this control.

Article I Sec 8:5
Congress shall have the power...
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Click to expand...

And they gave that power to the fed due to political pressure. Surely you realize this. Or would you much rather have a democratic majority holding the keys to the printing press?

Think about it for a little....
 
Goldenboy219 said:
And they gave that power to the fed due to political pressure.
Click to expand...
The power was delegated; it still ultimately rests with Congress, and remains delegated to the fed at the whim of same.
Surely you realize this.
 
Goobieman said:
The power was delegated; it still ultimately rests with Congress, and remains delegated to the fed at the whim of same.
Surely you realize this.
Click to expand...

Where does it state that the Federal government cannot charter banks?

Also: you did not answer my question. Would you like a democratic controlled congress holding the keys to the printing press?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Where does it state that the Federal government cannot charter banks?
Click to expand...
I dont recall making the claim that anything does.

Also: you did not answer my question. Would you like a democratic controlled congress holding the keys to the printing press?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to my response - the fact remains that Congress already has the keys to the printing press.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWobmdjieHQ"]YouTube- DeMint Explains Why the Federal Reserve Should Be Audited[/ame]



The man is right!


j-mac
 
Goobieman said:
I dont recall making the claim that anything does.
Click to expand...

Then you have nothing against an independent central bank.

Irrelevant to my response - the fact remains that Congress already has the keys to the printing press.
Click to expand...

Really? Then how come they do not control the money supply?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Then you have nothing against an independent central bank.
Really? Then how come they do not control the money supply?
Click to expand...
I simply stated a fact which corrected your misconception that Congress does not control the printing press. You really do not need to respond beyond a simple 'yes, you're right, it does say that, right in the Constitution - thank you very much'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom