• 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!

Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

1. a program that keeps its promises

2. a program not in need of a multi trillion dollar fix

Ok, so how do you propose paying for nearly $800 Billion in costs with less than $200 Billion in revenues?
 
Ok, so how do you propose paying for nearly $800 Billion in costs with less than $200 Billion in revenues?

how do you not understand that cutting taxes will make up the 600 billion dollar shortfall?
 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/tables.pdf

From Page 5 of the PDF (Labeled 149) Baseline Projects of Current Policy by Category

2011 Budget Baseline Projection (which means if all things stayed the same, no policy

Ok, first of all there isn't a 2011 budget so these are projections and as I recall Obama is President and Democrats control Congress so that budget is theirs, right?

changes):
Security (i.e. Defense, Intelligence, etc) - $846 Billion
Social Security - $730 Billion
Medicare - $492 Billion
Medicaid - $271 Billion
Net Interest (on debt) - $250 Billion

Total Cost of "Sacred" Programs - $2,589 Billion

Expected Revenues (i.e. tax receipts) for 2011 - $2,583 Billion

So, the total cost of the "sacred" programs is a bit more than what we expect to bring in for receipts for 2011.

Do you realize that SS is a separate tax? Medicare is separate tax? Income is a separate tax? Excise is a separate tax?

What exactly does income taxes fund?


This doesn't include any non-defense discretionary spending whatsoever. What does that mean?

No NASA
No Departments of Anything (including Justice, Labor, Education, Commerce, Interior, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, Treasury,EPA, Small Business Administration, Health and Human Services)
No Disaster Relief (Sorry New Orleans, better not get any hurricanes going your way)
NO ANYTHING ELSE EXCEPT THE "SACRED" PROGRAMS CAN EXIST IF WE WANT TO BALANCE THE BUDGET FOR 2011.

Ok with that?

As stated above, there are use taxes which I described plus the fact that most o fthe programs above have mirrored state agencies with a budget as well. We need a justice dept. We need a VA department. We don't need labor, Education, Commerce, Interior or any other on the scale they are on now, much reduced.


So, you want to reduce taxes even further? Well, you have to start cutting into those sacred programs then because we are already $6 Billion dollars short based on expected tax receipts for next year.

Here is the total revenue during the Bush years so tell me where the reduction in revenue is? Stop buying the rhetoric that tax cuts reduce revenue. The Bush tax rate cuts went into effect in July 2003. Where is the reduction in revenue?

2000 3,132
2001 3,118
2002 2,987
2003 3,043
2004 3,265
2005 3,659
2006 3,996
2007 4,197
2008 4,072


You want to increase defense even more. Well, you're going to have to increase taxes or cut even more into Medicare, Social Securtiy or Medicaid.

If you want to increase Medicare, SS, or Medicaid more, then increase the taxes in those areas and stop spending the money in the General fund


That's where we're at. Any questions?

Yes, I have a question, where do you get your information and why are you ignoring the various taxes that fund most of those entitlement programs?

Oh yeah, to answer you question. I absolutely think that spending 25% of our budget on defense is way too much. It's actually over 30% of expected tax receipts, that's even worse.


So when you break out all the use taxes, the excise taxes, the income taxes, both corporate and personal, do you have enough money to fund the govt. you think we should have? Please explain to me why SS, Medicare are on budget. Medicaid is a state program not a federal program. Why are SS and Medicare funds being spent on programs other than SS and Medicare?

Take each tax and tell me what they fund and how much money is generated. You will find that income taxes which are supposed to fund the necessary services of Govt. are more than enough to fund the Military budget as well as the original intent of our Founders.
 
Ok, so how do you propose paying for nearly $800 Billion in costs with less than $200 Billion in revenues?

you're asking ME to fix the unfixable?

get real
 
Ok, first of all there isn't a 2011 budget so these are projections and as I recall Obama is President and Democrats control Congress so that budget is theirs, right
?
That's exactly why I used the baseline projections on current policy instead of the proposed budget. The baseline is what's going to happen if we keep everything the same. It's not Obama's budget, it's the current budget based on current policy for 2011.

Do you realize that SS is a separate tax? Medicare is separate tax? Income is a separate tax? Excise is a separate tax?

What exactly does income taxes fund?

Umm, duh, yes of course I do. The $2,589 Billion is all receipts, not just income tax receipts.

As stated above, there are use taxes which I described plus the fact that most o fthe programs above have mirrored state agencies with a budget as well. We need a justice dept. We need a VA department. We don't need labor, Education, Commerce, Interior or any other on the scale they are on now, much reduced.

You want to keep justice, the Va, you gotta get more revenue or cut defense, medicare, medicaid or social security.

Here is the total revenue during the Bush years so tell me where the reduction in revenue is? Stop buying the rhetoric that tax cuts reduce revenue. The Bush tax rate cuts went into effect in July 2003. Where is the reduction in revenue?

2000 3,132
2001 3,118
2002 2,987
2003 3,043
2004 3,265
2005 3,659
2006 3,996
2007 4,197
2008 4,072

Link please, not saying it's inaccurate, just want to see where this is coming from.

If you want to increase Medicare, SS, or Medicaid more, then increase the taxes in those areas and stop spending the money in the General fund

Off topic and I'm not really against this. It's still a tax increase which is the point I am trying to make.

Yes, I have a question, where do you get your information and why are you ignoring the various taxes that fund most of those entitlement programs?

As stated above and within the link provided, the estimated receipt number ($2,589 Billion) includes all tax receipts, not just income taxe receipts. It's from the White House website, not sure I can do better than that.

So when you break out all the use taxes, the excise taxes, the income taxes, both corporate and personal, do you have enough money to fund the govt. you think we should have? Please explain to me why SS, Medicare are on budget. Medicaid is a state program not a federal program. Why are SS and Medicare funds being spent on programs other than SS and Medicare?

Take each tax and tell me what they fund and how much money is generated. You will find that income taxes which are supposed to fund the necessary services of Govt. are more than enough to fund the Military budget as well as the original intent of our Founders.

1st paragraph I have now answered twice.

2nd, again, taxes will still need to be increased as a whole. Medicare is not paying for itself with payroll taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

Unlike Medicare, which is solely a federal program, Medicaid is a joint federal-state program. Each state operates its own Medicaid system, but this system must conform to federal guidelines in order for the state to receive matching funds and grants. The matching rate provided to states is determined using a federal matching formula (called Federal Medical Assistance Percentages), which generates payment rates that vary from state to state, depending on each state's respective per capita income.[16] The wealthiest states only receive a federal match of 50% while poorer states receive a larger match.

Medicaid is not solely funded by the states.
 
Last edited:
Hate to break it to you but society is made up of individuals and individuals with more spendable income need less of that so called liberal help. Why are liberals so afraid of people keeping more of what they earn? You actually believe that liberal bureaucrats really care about the poor and underprivledged? If they truly cared they would solve the problem but don't.Why?
Ever try to herd cats? We will always have the poor with us, wasn't it the apostle Paul who said that?
You can't fix people who don't believe they are broke...
 
Hate to break it to you but society is made up of individuals and individuals with more spendable income need less of that so called liberal help. Why are liberals so afraid of people keeping more of what they earn? You actually believe that liberal bureaucrats really care about the poor and underprivledged? If they truly cared they would solve the problem but don't.Why?
At the moment, liberals are all for letting the middle class keep more of their money. That is good enough for me. I don't care one bit if the rich have to pay a little more. Mostly I don't believe that it will hurt any of them, not much anyway. I have written a few big checks to Uncle Sam. It only hurts a little, unless you obsess over it...oh, wait, you are obsessing...:2razz:
 
mega conclusions implicit in the recommendations of obama's debt commission:

1. keynesianism is OUT

2. social security and medicare are FAILED programs in need of massive, multi trillion dollar fixes
 
Taboon;1059103543]?
That's exactly why I used the baseline projections on current policy instead of the proposed budget. The baseline is what's going to happen if we keep everything the same. It's not Obama's budget, it's the current budget based on current policy for 2011.

Umm, duh, yes of course I do. The $2,589 Billion is all receipts, not just income tax receipts.

Grow the economy and the numbers increase. BEA.gov will give you the breakdown of revenue and expenses as they were spent, so does the U.S. Treasury site. The numbers I gave you came from bea.gov because captures history in a form that even you can understand. Go to bea.gov, go to Gross Domestic Product, click on most frequently requested tables and go to revenue and expense. You will learn a lot there.

You want to keep justice, the Va, you gotta get more revenue or cut defense, medicare, medicaid or social security. Link please, not saying it's inaccurate, just want to see where this is coming from.

Not really, VA is about 100 billion a year, Defense should be about 750 billion aa year, Justice should be about 50 billion a year. The total expenses of what the Constitution requires is about 1.8 billion dollars.

Off topic and I'm not really against this. It's still a tax increase which is the point I am trying to make.

As stated above and within the link provided, the estimated receipt number ($2,589 Billion) includes all tax receipts, not just income taxe receipts. It's from the White House website, not sure I can do better than that.

Please name for me one projection or prediction that Obama Wh has made that has beena accurate. I will take the Treasury data any day, that is the bank account of the nation

1st paragraph I have now answered twice.

2nd, again, taxes will still need to be increased as a whole. Medicare is not paying for itself with payroll taxes.

Medicaid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have a law on the books called unfunded mandates. The states get help from the Federal Govt. on mandated programs by the Federal Govt. Many states are going to opt out of Medicaid if the Federal Govt. keeps sending down mandates without the money to fund them long term.


Medicaid is not solely funded by the states

Right, but it is funded by your withholding taxes as a line item on your paystub. That money goes to the state not the Federal govt.
 
how do you not understand that cutting taxes will make up the 600 billion dollar shortfall?

Where do you get your information? Link please? And please don't give partisan bs, I want non biased data. The data I posted showed tax revenue grew AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, how do you explain it?
 
Ever try to herd cats? We will always have the poor with us, wasn't it the apostle Paul who said that?
You can't fix people who don't believe they are broke...

Right, remember the "War on Poverty?" how much was spent by LBJ on that program and how much has been spent since?
 
At the moment, liberals are all for letting the middle class keep more of their money. That is good enough for me. I don't care one bit if the rich have to pay a little more. Mostly I don't believe that it will hurt any of them, not much anyway. I have written a few big checks to Uncle Sam. It only hurts a little, unless you obsess over it...oh, wait, you are obsessing...:2razz:

Sounds to me like a little class envy. It is more about principle than anything, why penalize producers?
 
Where do you get your information? Link please? And please don't give partisan bs, I want non biased data. The data I posted showed tax revenue grew AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, how do you explain it?

The same way it has been explained every time you use this misleading argument. If I get a pay cut, but work more hours, I may make more money, but I still got a pay cut. If you reduce taxes, but more revenue was raised die to growth in the economy, you still reduced the amount of revenue over what it would have been. You have had this explained dozens of times, and yet still try and use this silly argument.
 
Sounds to me like a little class envy. It is more about principle than anything, why penalize producers?

Or he feels that the wealthier people are hurt less by higher taxes. Dishonest spin is still dishonest.
 
Sounds to me like a little class envy. It is more about principle than anything, why penalize producers?
What does the very rich produce other than an unstable ecomomy when they get huge tax breaks. They gamble it on WS.
 
What does the very rich produce other than an unstable ecomomy when they get huge tax breaks. They gamble it on WS.

Depends on who they are. Some produce quite a bit, some not so much. Going down this road only gives credence to his weak argument.
 
Depends on who they are. Some produce quite a bit, some not so much. Going down this road only gives credence to his weak argument.
There are many on Wall Street that make billions/year and others that make millions, they produce NOTHING!!
 
There are many on Wall Street that make billions/year and others that make millions, they produce NOTHING!!

If you are making billions a year on Wall Street, you certainly are producing something, namely wealth. There is nothing wrong with that.
 
There are many on Wall Street that make billions/year and others that make millions, they produce NOTHING!!

They produce a truckload of cash flow and tax revenue, every year. Cash flow is what keeps the economy rolling. And, no, the government can't create that cash flow.
 
The same way it has been explained every time you use this misleading argument. If I get a pay cut, but work more hours, I may make more money, but I still got a pay cut. If you reduce taxes, but more revenue was raised die to growth in the economy, you still reduced the amount of revenue over what it would have been. You have had this explained dozens of times, and yet still try and use this silly argument.

Where does human behavior fit into your world? You aren't going to get the same level of spending thus GDP Growth with higher taxes thus the revenue is going to drop for companies that rely on that spending and that reduces corporate taxes. Too many people ignore the affects of spendable income on the economy. If you get a pay cut it will be due to higher taxes and that is what really matters. What would have happened with higher taxes is people having less take home pay and thus less spendable income.
 
Back
Top Bottom