• 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!

House passes huge GOP budget cuts

Catawba said:
Are you talking about the huge savings to be made by having the government manage the Advantage Care, rather than the past practice of letting private companies provide it at a much greater cost?

That is cutting waste, something I thought we were all interested in, except the insurance companies that have been making record profits at our great expense.
Click to expand...

You call cutting 500 billion waste?
There isn't 500 billion in Medicare that is waste, in the traditional sense.

They were reducing payments to doctors, which they went back on and which also resulted in the Obamacare bill adding more to the deficit.

The advantage plans are for gaps in Medicare coverage.
 
pbrauer said:
Americans couldn't cares less about the budget, if they had, they would have screamed bloody murder when Bush was president.
Click to expand...

that was then, this is now

They DO care about having Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid
Click to expand...

and they're precariously insolvent, americans know they won't be there in a generation

at the state level, public pensions are in even worse shape

FT.com / US / Economy & Fed - US public pensions face $2,500bn shortfall

if the entitlements are such wonderful programs, why are they in such dire need of draconian fix

why are they killing us

and that's why President Obama and the Democrats will take this legislation and wrap it around the neck of Republicans.
Click to expand...

no, harry will never be able to put a number on paper

the slasher, unable to produce, will have to shut up

he'll be seen as a president in a crisis with no plan to get out except hyper partisanship and class division

run on that
 
Last edited:
Mayor Snorkum said:
Yes. There are those who realize the Courts are a political body and often write rulings to achieve political ends at odds with the Constititution.

Plessy v Ferguson was not Constitutional
Roe v Wade was fiction-based.
Kelo v New London is clearly based in Mammon, not the Constitution.
The Miller decision that led to the imposition of gun control laws is clearly based on falsity.
The decisions that accepted the New Deal scams were political in nature, and almost none of them have any valid constitutional backing, especially not any of the entitlement scams, such as Social Security and the FHA.

That's the problems lawyers have with the United States Constitution. It was written in English, and Americans can both read it and decide for themselves when the damn courts are pulling **** out of their asses.
Click to expand...


Well thanks for your opinion, I think I will go with 80 years of rule of law that shows that progressive taxes have never been successfully challenged as to whether they are Constitutional.

There are groups of people that live out in the woods who I understand share that point of view however.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Quite true

But the last three years are hold a rather significant fact. The final collapse of consumer demand driven by debt in the US. Something that has been building for the last 30 years or so. The US govenment had the choice of a massive deflationary event by providing no government stimulus to the economy. But I doubt any president ( Ron Paul excepted) would have done pretty much the same as Obama has, for the most part Obama has followed the same policies as Bush when it comes to the economy. McCain would have done not much different, a couple hundred billion here or there, which when talking about 1.6 trillion deficits is rather small when it comes to differences in government spending

Now as Keynesian theory suggests that durin good economic periods running a governmengt surplus is in order to fund government deficits during the bad years, the question would be, why was not surplus run during the bush 2 years and the good years of the reagan admin? Government surplus's certainly can be achieved. Canada, Australia ran them during the early to mid part of Bush 2 years. Meaning the US could have as well
Click to expand...

Because a government "surplus" means the government is stealing money that has not lawful purpose. It's money held by the government, which means it's money that both immorally attached and doing nothing useful. Whereas a a balanced budget implies the government is running so that revenues meet expenditures, and the remaining money in the hands of the people who can best make use of it (that's the people who earned it), a government surplus is money taken that does nothing at all. And you're familiar with the saying that the Devil finds work for idle hands, just imagine what the socialists have managed to do with idle money. Why, the socialists have wasted it, every dime.

Keynesian theory never works, that's why FDR's Depression got worse, not better, it's why Carter's economy got worse, and it's why Bush's and Obama's "solutions" have failed.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You call cutting 500 billion waste?
There isn't 500 billion in Medicare that is waste, in the traditional sense.
Click to expand...

Provide a link to your $500 billion cut in benefits claim please then.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Well, first off, any definition of fair will have to show compliance with existing law.
Click to expand...

Say what? How does existing law define any compliance with the definition of fair? Everyone's definition of fair varies. Is it fair that the rich pay more because they earn more? It is fair that the rich pay more because they own vast majority of assets in this country? It is fair that everyone pays the same amount? The problem with people like Turtle is that they define fair as they please and do not stick to that definition. I have no respect for people who unilaterally change their definitions based on how badly they are losing an argument.

Taxation in excess of the spending authorized by the Constititon is blatantly illegal, and hence unfair to everyone, even more so for those paying the greatest proportion of the taxes.
Click to expand...

That shouldn't be a problem as the COTUS doesn't cover that. Furthermore, taxation in excess of spending isn't necessarily a bad idea. For instance, states do this all of the time. They deposit the surplus into rainy day funds which generate income which can be used for disaster, stimulus or budget balancing. IMO, building a surplus is far preferable then deficit spending. I'd rather have the fed tax more, build a surplus fund and use that surplus fund for stimulus spending during recessions then borrow money. At least with that method we stay in the black. As Japan shows us, bad stuff happens. Going in to debt to fix that is not preferable when you can build up a safety fund during good times. What I vastly dislike about the Tea Party is that they don't seem to understand this .

The rich, of course, pay the greatest portion of the taxes.
Click to expand...

The rich also own the greatest portion of asset.

So, clearly, taxes are already too high.
Click to expand...

That does not logically follow.

The issue of the budget deficit isn't one of insufficient taxes, it's one of excess and unconstitutional spending.
Click to expand...

Actually it's both.

Given that almost 50% of the nation isn't paying federal taxes, and it can't be fair that 2% of the people are carrying 50% of the tax burden. No rational definition of fair is going to allow this.
Click to expand...

Come again? 50% don't pay federal taxes? You got this where? Last I checked, payroll taxes are federal taxes. And only around 45% of the country is not working. Actually 10% of the population is carrying 55% of the burden.

Congressional Budget Office - Data on the Distribution of Federal Taxes and Household Income

As for no "rational" definition, well that is your opinion.

Take this for example: The economy is basically a machine to generate material wealth. The economy is kept going by taxes that support the economy and regulate it so that it functions properly. Now, who should pay the majority of taxes in such a system? Those who own very few of the total wealth or those who own the majority of the wealth?

So much for your "no rational definition of fair is going to allow this."

Given that raising taxes on the wealthy when the tax system is on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve decreases revenue
Click to expand...

Which is nothing more than speculation.

Thievery is never fair by any honest appraisal.
Click to expand...

Taxation =/= theft.

Fairness means spreading the tax burden out to more and more people, so they can understand the issues involved.
Click to expand...

That depends how you look at things. See my earlier example.

If you keep up the notion that taxation = theft, you are not worth talking you.
 
haymarket said:
All the programs and taxes you hate and loathe were enacted by BOTH parties.
Click to expand...

yes, they were

fdr's social security and lbj's civil rights and medicare were all passed with significant republican support

indeed, in 64 it took everett dirkson to break richard russell's and young kkk byrd's filibuster, and civil rights became law with greater gop backing than dem

obamacare, in crying contrast, was crammed via senate reconciliation which came mere days after the party was prepared to deem the darn thing

talk about extreme
 
Catawba said:
Well thanks for your opinion, I think I will go with 80 years of rule of law that shows that progressive taxes have never been successfully challenged as to whether they are Constitutional.

There are groups of people that live out in the woods who I understand share that point of view however.
Click to expand...

Then again, since the Mayor has been discussing the unconstitutional spending and not saying word one about the Constitutionality of taxes (having read the Constitution, the Mayor is aware that there were amendments that damaged the Republic before the 17th Amendment killed the Republic.)

However, since the Fourteenth Amendment requires that no persons be denied equal protection under the law, it is clear that such crass discrimination as the graduated income tax, to use an accurate name instead of it's propagandized image, is a violation of the basic intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, violates the founding ideology expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and is flatly nothing but a juvenile expression of class envy. Not to mention that the wealthy simply do not have the money to finance the orgy the left is demanding. The Wall Street Journal commented the other day that a 100% tax on all people making in excess of $100k would net $1.5 trillion, and yet Obama's budgets are three times greater.

The issue is not a tax issue, the issue is the spending and the issue about the spending is that almost all of the spending is in direct violation of the Constitution.
 
Catawba said:
Exactly, the sides are clear in the class war that is underway in America.
Click to expand...

another winner bumper sticker

pick sides, vote for obama, 2012

leadership, anyone?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Its obvious why the cuts to the countries safety nets are being proposed, to attempt to make the poor and the middle class pay for the debt created by the wars and tax cuts for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

the nets are insolvent

there's not enough money in the class that is the enemy to tax the net to whole

sorry

from athens to sacramento, there's no stopping it---massive budget reform, as unavoidable as physics

ask andrew cuomo

join r-e-a-l-i-t-y
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
ALL funding of unconstitutional programs is debt that must be repaid eventually.
Click to expand...

That does not logically make sense. Funding done through regular taxes is not debt. Nor must it be repaid.

Furthermore, constitutional spending can be easily (and IS!) financed by debt.

When considering the national debt, it's instructive to know that under Clinton the ten trillion dollar (10^10!!!!) national debt was easily seen to be the sum of the unconstitutional expenditures on Social Security, Welfare, and other programs. It did not include the unconstitutional spending on education and other federal programs lacking constitutional basis.
Click to expand...

What you define as Constitutional is highly questionable. You seem to be suffering from the same definitional problem as Turtledude. Social Security is not unconstitutional, nor is welfare. NASA is unconstitutional. Non-Constitutional spending makes up a pretty small percent of the total spending.

Boy, this is retarded.
Click to expand...

See above. I don't define Constitutional as anything I like.

You people can't seem to figure out that mature adults, especially a mature adult trying to get the nation into recovery from the Disaster Known as Carter AND trying to secure victory against the Evil Empire, could not veto omnibus spending bills that would have crashed the economy if not passed.
Click to expand...

And yet you have the gall NOT to blame Reagan despite saying just that?

And your refusal to blame those people comes from no other source than your own ignorant partisan loyalties to ideological principles that are the antithesis of the Constitutional principles that made this nation a success.
Click to expand...

Wow. Apparently me blaming everyone suddenly doesn't apply here because I attacked Reagan once. Interesting how partisan you got so fast. By the way, how is illegally funding terrorists constitutional? Let's see just how much of a giant flaming hypocrite you really are. I'm a partisan. That's hilarious.

I guessed you missed me bashing Bush on his SOCIALIST programs. Apparently that makes me a Democrat? Imagine that. So much for you being worthy of a debate partner.

What's really retarded is that the Mayor is obligated to give this lecture to so many silly people and no matter how often the Mayor corrects them, there's always another ignorant person that will refuse to learn and will continue to post his ignorance.
Click to expand...

What's amazing is the amount of hypocrisy and arrogance you have. Except without the smarts. :2wave:

What's extremely dishonest to pretend Tip O'Neill's role in busting the budget was irrelevant, as is noting that the budget busting items were the unconstitutional items the Democrats expanded.
Click to expand...

And where did I do that? Oh wait. I didn't.

Also, note the vast tissue of lies propounded in the 1980's, the 3 million homeless bums that were somehow Reagan's fault, who magically vanished when the felonious perjeror was elected president. Note the scorn of the left-wing dominated media over Reagan's Space Defense Initiative. Note the continued lies about the alleged "mistakes of the past" when, rather than mistakes, Reagan's supply side economics reversed Carter's stagflation and generated 22 million jobs by the time Reagan left office.
Click to expand...

Supply side economics? Apparently spending huge amounts of money (debt financed) that is doesn't have any impact? Its amusing how you blame Democrats for everything bad but credit just Republicans for good things. Tell me, does government spending increase demand?

Looks like we got another partisan hack here.

Because Obama believes allowing the people who earn their money to keep their money is a "mistake"
Click to expand...

So much so he pushed tax cuts and credits for people. I guess Obama hates people keeping their money he pushed legislation to increase the amount they keep? Btw, I'm laughing at you right now.

Hyperbole much?

Obama is seeing an inflationary surge and an economy stalling in preparation for a second recession, just when he's dragged the nation into a third war without getting us out of either of the other two.
Click to expand...

The inflationary surge has little to do with anything he did. In fact you can blame most of it on natural disasters and India and China's economic boom. How that is Obama's fault, you'll find something. Partisan hacks always do. Even if it makes no sense at all.

As for Libya, I take it you thought the Sebrenica massacres were okay?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I did not say "cut in benefits", I said 500 billion in "cuts to Medicare."

This says 455 billion, other places have said 500 bil and yet another said 540 bil.
I'll go with the low ball, to be on the safe side.

Q+A: How does healthcare overhaul affect Medicare? | Reuters
Click to expand...

You asked why the Dems were not upset with cutting wasteful medicare/medicade spending?

Its right there in the link you just posted:

"WILL THE LEGISLATION CUT MEDICARE BENEFITS?

There are no cuts to the traditional Medicare benefit. The lion's share of spending cuts are in Medicare Advantage -- a program that uses private firms such as Humana and UnitedHealth Group to deliver Medicare benefits."
 
haymarket said:
If that is not enough humble pie for you and Turtle to dine on jointly
Click to expand...

too personal, it's demeaning

sounds like:

"When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, he's just being America's accountant ... This is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for," Mr. Obama told his supporters. "So it's not on the level."
Click to expand...

Obama: GOP tried to "sneak" agenda into budget - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

solutions, anyone?

leadership?
 
Catawba said:
You asked why the Dems were not upset with cutting wasteful medicare/medicade spending?

Its right there in the link you just posted:

"WILL THE LEGISLATION CUT MEDICARE BENEFITS?

There are no cuts to the traditional Medicare benefit. The lion's share of spending cuts are in Medicare Advantage -- a program that uses private firms such as Humana and UnitedHealth Group to deliver Medicare benefits."
Click to expand...

So what?
If those programs reduce their services, Medicare recipients will get less benefits.
Advantage programs are gap fillers in Medicare.

It essentially translates into a benefit cut.
Where was the outrage?
 
obvious Child said:
Say what? How does existing law define any compliance with the definition of fair? Everyone's definition of fair varies. Is it fair that the rich pay more because they earn more? It is fair that the rich pay more because they own vast majority of assets in this country? It is fair that everyone pays the same amount? The problem with people like Turtle is that they define fair as they please and do not stick to that definition. I have no respect for people who unilaterally change their definitions based on how badly they are losing an argument.



That shouldn't be a problem as the COTUS doesn't cover that. Furthermore, taxation in excess of spending isn't necessarily a bad idea. For instance, states do this all of the time. They deposit the surplus into rainy day funds which generate income which can be used for disaster, stimulus or budget balancing. IMO, building a surplus is far preferable then deficit spending. I'd rather have the fed tax more, build a surplus fund and use that surplus fund for stimulus spending during recessions then borrow money. At least with that method we stay in the black. As Japan shows us, bad stuff happens. Going in to debt to fix that is not preferable when you can build up a safety fund during good times. What I vastly dislike about the Tea Party is that they don't seem to understand this .



The rich also own the greatest portion of asset.



That does not logically follow.



Actually it's both.



Come again? 50% don't pay federal taxes? You got this where? Last I checked, payroll taxes are federal taxes. And only around 45% of the country is not working. Actually 10% of the population is carrying 55% of the burden.

Congressional Budget Office - Data on the Distribution of Federal Taxes and Household Income

As for no "rational" definition, well that is your opinion.

Take this for example: The economy is basically a machine to generate material wealth. The economy is kept going by taxes that support the economy and regulate it so that it functions properly. Now, who should pay the majority of taxes in such a system? Those who own very few of the total wealth or those who own the majority of the wealth?

So much for your "no rational definition of fair is going to allow this."



Which is nothing more than speculation.



Taxation =/= theft.



That depends how you look at things. See my earlier example.

If you keep up the notion that taxation = theft, you are not worth talking you.
Click to expand...

I want no part of the nonsense going back and forth but feel compelled to correct what should be an obvious error in the above. Payroll taxes are materially different than Individual Federla Taxes. My sense is that everyone really knows this, but for whatever reason likes to conflate the two.

What makes up payroll taxes. Social security which should be viewed as a retirement fund, medicare which is also to pay medical exenses for the retired, unemployment Insurance, which is just what it says, insurance to people pay into in the event they find themselves out of work. None of this money should be considered to cover anything but these items. Years ago, the government addedthis stuff into what is called the unified budget. largely because these payroll taxes were running large surpluses and covered up some of our deficit spending.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
So what?
If those programs reduce their services, Medicare recipients will get less benefits.
Advantage programs are gap fillers in Medicare.

It essentially translates into a benefit cut.
Click to expand...


Read your own article and other sources on the subject. They do not cut benefits. They eliminate the costs of insurance company large profit from the equation. Advantage care is administered much more cheaply through M/M than through private companies. That is where the savings without benefit cuts comes about.

Why are you opposed to that?
 
Last edited:
washunut said:
I want no part of the nonsense going back and forth but feel compelled to correct what should be an obvious error in the above. Payroll taxes are materially different than Individual Federla Taxes. My sense is that everyone really knows this, but for whatever reason likes to conflate the two.
Click to expand...

True, they are different. But in the context of total taxes paid, they are one and the same. Furthermore, in the context of the budget where it matters, Payroll taxes fund the largest expenditures within the budget, and the largest expenditures are the biggest drivers of the deficit and future deficits. To ignore payroll taxes, social security and medicare in the context of taxes and budget cuts is massively dishonest.

What makes up payroll taxes. Social security which should be viewed as a retirement fund, medicare which is also to pay medical exenses for the retired, unemployment Insurance, which is just what it says, insurance to people pay into in the event they find themselves out of work. None of this money should be considered to cover anything but these items. Years ago, the government addedthis stuff into what is called the unified budget. largely because these payroll taxes were running large surpluses and covered up some of our deficit spending.
Click to expand...

Hence partially why a reasonable, honest person cannot discuss the topic without them.
 
Catawba said:
Read your own article and other sources on the subject. They do not cut benefits. They eliminate the costs of insurance company large profit from the equation.
Click to expand...

You think those insurance companies will offer the same benefits for less money?
If you do, I've got a bridge to sell you as well.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You think those insurance companies will offer the same benefits for less money?
If you do, I've got a bridge to sell you as well.
Click to expand...

Its not going to be run by the private insurance companies anymore who just add on more overhead and profits to the costs. The payments to the doctors is the same. We are just running it more efficiently. Perhaps you should spend more time learing about it before you continue as if you know nothing about it.
 
disneydude said:
Why do you people think that doing business in the US should be free?
Click to expand...

nothing in this country is free

unless you're a holder in the company managed by obama's jobs czar

leadership, anyone?
 
Catawba said:
Its not going to be run by the private insurance companies anymore who just add on more overhead and profits to the costs. The payments to the doctors is the same. We are just running it more efficiently. Perhaps you should spend more time learing about it before you continue as if you know nothing about it.
Click to expand...

Riiiiight.

The advantage payments are being frozen this year and then gradually reduced and the payments to doctors were not cut, a bill was passed afterward, pushed by the President no less, that restored the payments.

You guys should follow the issues more, instead of getting caught up in the intentions.
You all got played.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
They aren't putting money into the system which is why our economy is struggling.
Click to expand...

yup, they're uncertain

and possibly resentful

the slasher would seize it if he had any guts

but he won't, harry will never put a particular on paper

this guy would, tho

RealClearPolitics - Video - Michael Moore On Wealthy People's Money: "That's Not Theirs, That's A National Resource, It's Ours"

if the slasher were gonna DO anything other than make excellent speeches, great speeches, he wouldn't have signed the bush/obama/clinton/boehner/mcconnell tax cuts for the rich into law TWO MONTHS AGO

he'd have DONE something in his 2012 budget which, unlike his great and excellent speeches, is actually hard copy and REAL, published in february

the senate would've DONE something in response to HR ONE which hurry-up-harry has been sitting on SINCE FEBRUARY

when's the slasher gonna produce A PLAN?

what's gonna be IN IT?

when you ask those obvious questions you'll see the slasher's a sham

with nothing up his sleeve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom