• 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: I'll cut $4 trillion

the kudos go to the CBO for presenting the data to document clinton moved our nation from annual deficit to annual surplus


it appears you have (conveniently) missed the point
my earlier post referenced the revenue gain from taxing the rich as clinton did
the economy boomed and jobs were bountiful
then the shrub did the opposite, cutting taxes on the wealthy and the economy tanked

yet the republican mantra for any problem is "tax cuts"
we can see from our current economic malaise that "tax cuts" is certainly not the answer
it was not true during the dicknbush regime
it is not true TODAY


sorry, but i will speak the truth, especially in response to stupidity

Run, Justbubba, Run!! Taking money from SS and puting it on budget steals from one fund for another doesn't create a surplus. You have been brainwashed and that makes you look foolish when the facts are posted.
 
Obama is a leftwing ideologue who believes in a large central govt. and the nanny state. I believe he knows exactly what he is doing and that is destroying the foundation upon which this country was built.

hasn't government employment decreased under obama?
 
Run, Justbubba, Run!! Taking money from SS and puting it on budget steals from one fund for another doesn't create a surplus. You have been brainwashed and that makes you look foolish when the facts are posted.

when the facts are with you, argue the facts
when the law is with you, argue the law
and when neither the facts nor the law are with you, bang on the table

keep banging
 
Last edited:
when the facts are with you, argue the facts
when the law is with you, argue the law
and when neither the facts nor the law are with you, bang on the table

keep banging

What facts, the fact that public debt went down by taking from Intergovt. holdings? How does that create a surplus? If there was a surplus why did debt service go up as did total debt?
 
What facts, the fact that public debt went down by taking from Intergovt. holdings? How does that create a surplus? If there was a surplus why did debt service go up as did total debt?

read the CBO data. it has been previously cited
you have not been able to show that it is other than valid
you cannot refute it
 
hasn't government employment decreased under obama?

Why don't you ask the consumer protection agency if the nanny state has decreased. After you do that I have a whole line of other people like the FCC for you to ask.

And I would like proof that employment has decreased.
 
read the CBO data. it has been previously cited
you have not been able to show that it is other than valid
you cannot refute it

I am not arguing public debt numbers but you are ignoring that the total debt went up due to the fact that SS was taken from Intergovt. holdings and that created a deficit there. That is totally dishonest. Total debt is the issue not public debt. I have totally refuted it with Treasury numbers.

How can an ideology create so many brainwashed people. You want to believe that there was a Clinton surplus but that is a flat lie. There WAS a surplus in Public debt but that is only part of the story, total debt went up.
 
it appears you have (conveniently) missed the point
my earlier post referenced the revenue gain from taxing the rich as clinton did
the economy boomed and jobs were bountiful
then the shrub did the opposite, cutting taxes on the wealthy and the economy tanked

Clinton was right place right time, if you dont know that. we really have to end this argument here.
or you can point to a particular Clinton policy that propped up this revenue gain you speak of.
i'm all ears.

yet the republican mantra for any problem is "tax cuts"
we can see from our current economic malaise that "tax cuts" is certainly not the answer
it was not true during the dicknbush regime
it is not true TODAY
do you even hear yourself, tax cuts means we keep more of our money.
The government is spending and wasting beyond belief, and your answer is we should give them more of OUR money?
have you lost your mind.

sorry, but i will speak the truth, especially in response to stupidity

you speak in what CNN has told you to speak.
 
Clinton was right place right time, if you dont know that. we really have to end this argument here.
or you can point to a particular Clinton policy that propped up this revenue gain you speak of.
i'm all ears.

do you even hear yourself, tax cuts means we keep more of our money.
The government is spending and wasting beyond belief, and your answer is we should give them more of OUR money?
have you lost your mind.

you speak in what CNN has told you to speak.

Good post, I just keep wondering why people keep spouting the rhetoric and continue to believe in the leftwing ideology even though the numbers don't support their claims. What is it about an ideology that creates such loyalty?

The left is fighting so hard to prevent people from keeping more of what they earn and claim that is an expense to the govt. That is so illogical that it is frustrating to anyone who can actually think.
 
He's got the media with him, so it will be tough, but I wouldn't underestimate the GOP. Raising taxes on the rich is popular, but it's also very scary. Jobs creation could get stifled, unemployment may go up. He's playing that rich card to death. He's got class warfare down pat. Fact is he can tax the wealthy to death, and he's still going to have to hit the MC, eventually. I personally think he has no clue what he's doing.

If the conversation comes down to granny paying more for medical costs... Or taxing the rich, the GOP is ****ed.
 
If the conversation comes down to granny paying more for medical costs... Or taxing the rich, the GOP is ****ed.

Exactly the debate liberals want as more and more people are being sold the "benefits" of the nanny state and the replacement of personal responsibility with govt. responsibility. That failed ideology is on display all over the world but the arrogant liberals believe that this group of liberals will do better than the last group of liberals. Hardly reality as liberals only create debt and dependence.
 
Clinton was right place right time, if you dont know that. we really have to end this argument here.
or you can point to a particular Clinton policy that propped up this revenue gain you speak of.
i'm all ears.
already mentioned his method to increase revenues to cover government expenditures to the point that revenues exceeded expenses. in short, the federal deficit was turned into an annual surplus due to his policy ... notably the opposite of the republican mantra 'tax cuts' as the solution to any government problem


do you even hear yourself, tax cuts means we keep more of our money.
an approach which is damaging to our nation when it causes our country to face a financial crisis. but i do recognize that your position places your personal desires above the needs of our nation. it's a republican characteristic, unfortunately

The government is spending and wasting beyond belief, and your answer is we should give them more of OUR money?
you have probably honed in on where we differ. while there is obviously savings to be found on the spending side, what we see from the republican approach is to give tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. this is nothing other than implementation of the republican 'starve the beast' strategy

have you lost your mind.
if being mindless is being concerned that we will be less able to educate our kids, provide health care for those who are in need of it, be unable to provide assistance to those who are unable to provide for themselves, then yes, i will acknowledge that definition of being mindless

you speak in what CNN has told you to speak
as i told you before, i intend to speak truth when confronted by stupidity. cnn has nothing to do with it
 
if the conversation comes down to whether to do something or whether to make speeches, the president is a charlatan

ie, many underestimate the sophistication of the american electorate

today:

The share of the population that is working fell to its lowest level last year since women started entering the workforce in large numbers three decades ago, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983 and down from a peak of 49.3% in 2000. Last year, just 66.8% of men had jobs, the lowest on record.

The bad economy, an aging population and a plateau in women working are contributing to changes that pose serious challenges for financing the nation’s social programs.

For example, job troubles appear to have slowed a trend of people working later in life, putting more pressure on Social Security.

Another change: the bulk of those not working has shifted from children to adults.

In 2000, the nation had roughly the same number of children and non-working adults. Since then, the population of non-working adults has grown 27 million while the nation added just 3 million children under 18.

More Americans leaving workforce - USATODAY.com

hurry, harry

write up and pass the slasher's sentiments
 
already mentioned his method to increase revenues to cover government expenditures to the point that revenues exceeded expenses. in short, the federal deficit was turned into an annual surplus due to his policy ... notably the opposite of the republican mantra 'tax cuts' as the solution to any government problem



an approach which is damaging to our nation when it causes our country to face a financial crisis. but i do recognize that your position places your personal desires above the needs of our nation. it's a republican characteristic, unfortunately


you have probably honed in on where we differ. while there is obviously savings to be found on the spending side, what we see from the republican approach is to give tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. this is nothing other than implementation of the republican 'starve the beast' strategy


if being mindless is being concerned that we will be less able to educate our kids, provide health care for those who are in need of it, be unable to provide assistance to those who are unable to provide for themselves, then yes, i will acknowledge that definition of being mindless


as i told you before, i intend to speak truth when confronted by stupidity. cnn has nothing to do with it

Why are you ignoring intergovt. holdings when talking about the deficit? Are you really that brainwashed that you cannot understand that the total debt is growing?
 
Just read the article, and it seems to me that Obama's plan is rather timid. Unless I'm not understanding it, it seems that Obama isn't proposing any actual cuts in spending. Rather he wants to slow the growth of spending below the projected rate of inflation and then call that "savings". We currently have a 1.5 trillion deficit annually. If that number remained stable over the next twelve years, we'd rack up another 18 trillion in debt. Obama proposes to reduce the growth of government enough to save us 4 trillion, which still leaves us owing an additional 14 trillion, which would still double our existing debt.

His proposal only tinkers with Medicare, targeting the always popular "waste and inefficiencies" in the system, rather than admitting that Medicare (like its cousin Social Security) is not financially feasible for the long term in its current state. Obama talked about Social Security reform, but said, "We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market." Sounds to me like he doesn't plan on changing much at all.

The biggest problem I have with Obama's plan (and Paul Ryan's plan as well) is most of the theoretical "savings" come several years down the road, so it assumes that future Congresses and the future President will have the restraint to live within the outline being proposed today. Going on past history, I don't think that's very likely.
 
Last edited:
Just read the article, and it seems to me that Obama's plan is rather timid. Unless I'm not understanding it, it seems that Obama isn't proposing any actual cuts in spending. Rather he wants to slow the growth of spending below the projected rate of inflation and then call that "savings". We currently have a 1.5 trillion deficit annually. If that number remained stable over the next twelve years, we'd rack up another 18 trillion in debt. Obama proposes to reduce the growth of government enough to save us 4 trillion, which still leaves us owing an additional 14 trillion, which would still double our existing debt.

His proposal only tinkers with Medicare, targeting the always popular "waste and inefficiencies" in the system, rather than admitting that Medicare (like its cousin Social Security) is not financially feasible for the long term in its current state. Obama talked about Social Security reform, but said, "We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market." Sounds to me like he doesn't plan on changing much at all.

The biggest problem I have with Obama (and Paul Ryan's plan as well) is most of the theoretical "savings" come several years down the road, so it assumes that future Congresses and the future President will have the restraint to live within the outline being proposed today. Going on past history, I don't think that's very likely.
[emphasis added by bubba]
as opposed to future history? [sorry, couldn't resist ... should place this in the pet peeves thread]

while i agree with your conclusion, that Obama did not go far enough, i disagree with your other points
Obama explained that 'waste and inefficiencies' would be an expression citizens would hear while this matter is being hammered out. the politicians will inveigh that such excessive spending exists but no one is able to point to specific savings to be had, despite strongly insisting that such inefficiencies and waste are rampant

Obama and congress should adopt the deficit commission report as its template to fix our nation's fiscal problems. because he failed to do so is why i concur that Obama did not go far enough in his (excellent) address
 
while mature americans are almost desperate for solutions, the slasher's excellent speech yesterday said nothing

except---campaign electioneering, partisan blaming to the extreme, class warfare and the promise of yet another congressional committee (this one headed by biden, if someone can wake him up) for the slasher to ignore

he's gutless, clueless, small minded and mean

it's all about him, the stagnating american economy be darned

one week from now, where will this discourse be

the party in power will be totally bereft when it comes to actual answers

it will be demagoging and demonizing and the louise slaughters will be spewing their hate speech

and you think americans won't notice

the 2012 campaign is firming up as just more of the same, republicans will run on that

put it IN WRITING, slash

tick tock...
 
Would one of you Progressives here tell me what "spending reductions in the tax code" means? Do any of you believe that you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the Federal Govt?
 
please cite evidence to prove your (bogus) assertion
Receipts by Source Total non SS = 1,306.3 in millions
Historical Tables Total Non-SS outlays 1,448,955 in millions

Now you try and prove you bogus assertions using actual data, not an opinion piece written by someone.

The accounting practices used allowed the government to borrow from the SSI "Trust Fund" without reporting that as deficit spending so it hid much deficit spending from 1987 until the past couple of years when the SSI expenditures were greater than the income.

To be fair to Obama, some of his deficit spending is the actual deficit spending that was hidden in previous years by the embezzlement of funds.
 
Receipts by Source Total non SS = 1,306.3 in millions
Historical Tables Total Non-SS outlays 1,448,955 in millions

Now you try and prove you bogus assertions using actual data, not an opinion piece written by someone.

The accounting practices used allowed the government to borrow from the SSI "Trust Fund" without reporting that as deficit spending so it hid much deficit spending from 1987 until the past couple of years when the SSI expenditures were greater than the income.

To be fair to Obama, some of his deficit spending is the actual deficit spending that was hidden in previous years by the embezzlement of funds.

gladly
read it and weep: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf
 
Would one of you Progressives here tell me what "spending reductions in the tax code" means? Do any of you believe that you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the Federal Govt?

please identify the post in which that expression was used. mysearch turns up only one post. yours
 
please identify the post in which that expression was used. mysearch turns up only one post. yours

That quote was in the Obama speech yesterday which apparently you didn't listen to. I further noted that you ran when the actual debt numbers were posted and how you actually left out intergovt. holdings which are future obligations thus debt
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom