• 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!

Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

Objective Voice said:
If your argument is that the wealthiest among us have "manipulated" tax laws in their favor thoughtout our nation's history, I can't say such an argument isn't without merit. But to suggest that they've never paid "their fair share" would be grossly incorrect. You can't tax an individual or an entity at near 100% and not expect them to be pissed off about it. But neither can you give such generous tax breaks to same and expect the poorest among us not to be unhappy about it either even when they receive modest benefits from tax breaks afford them, i.e., the Earned Income-Tax Credit which only favors those with dependent children but leaves those without children searching for other tax havens to utilize.

Those on the right have latched onto the mantra of "redistribution of weath." Well, I say "share the wealth!" Unfortunately, it ain't gonna happen. The evidence is all around us. Just look at the state of our national economy, as well as the current state of politics suggested by the GOP. Their interests aren't with fostering the economy nor uplifting the poor. It's money they covent...always has, always will be. Everything else is a smoke screen masked in "patriotism".
Click to expand...
what just claim do those who cannot pay for their own existence have on those of us who can
 
donsutherland1 said:
This news is troubling, because it suggests that either the American public is not yet sufficiently informed about the magnitude of fiscal imbalances/drivers/steps needed and/or, even if it is sufficiently informed, is unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary. Given the growing coverage the nation's debt has received, the two debt commissions, and heated political debate tied to the FY 2011 spending bill, a lack of familiarity would be disturbing in its own right. It would suggest the kind of obliviousness to key issues that undermines informed civic engagement.
Click to expand...

Or, maybe the public are informed but dismiss the coverage of the debt as self-serving distortion and misrepresentation by special interests.

I know I do.
 
The Prof said:
obama is oblivious

the out year projections for social security and medicare and medicaid (as well as state pensions) are so severe...

well, there's not enough money in the galaxy to make good those liabilities

if something serious isn't done now to restructure our budget, our big 3 social programs will not survive

leadership, anyone?
Click to expand...

I agree something needs to be done...and I also assert its not paul ryans candy store of huge tax cuts for the rich that is not debt reduction.
 
ARealConservative said:
Sharp cuts in spending would be terrific for the economy long term, because ultimately, I don’t agree with the broken window fallacy you subscribe to. Government spending cuts into private sector spending, while not having the safeguards in place that are triggered by inefficient private sector spending. That scenario can’t possibly be good for the economy long term.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

You're representing extremist economic theory as fact. Public spending has never been proven to affect private spending.
 
lpast said:
I agree something needs to be done...and I also assert its not paul ryans candy store of huge tax cuts for the rich that is not debt reduction.
Click to expand...

Ryan's tax cuts ??? I must have missed that. Seems to me that the effective tax rates for those making over $250,000 will be higher under Ryan's plan.
 
Joe Steel said:
Nonsense.

You're representing extremist economic theory as fact. Public spending has never been proven to affect private spending.
Click to expand...

common sense is all that is needed to understand that public spending affects private spending. what kind of dolt would question something so obvious?

as an example - we cut all public education spending tomorrow. does private spending on education go up, go down, or stay the same?

the answer is clear, and no proof is needed for something so obvious.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Yes, Paul Ryan Does Cut Taxes For The Rich

. . . . Therefore, his plan doesn't really cut taxes on the rich.

There are four problems with this claim, each of them fatal.

Yes, Paul Ryan Does Cut Taxes For The Rich | The New Republic
Click to expand...

The article you link to is the one with fatal flaws. Ryan lowers the published tax rate, but the actual tax paid will remain the same or even higher than it is now. Why do you think wealthy folks pay thousands of dollars to CPAs but to find every conceivable loophole available. Do away with the loopholes and the problem is solved.
 
Gill said:
The article you link to is the one with fatal flaws. Ryan lowers the published tax rate, but the actual tax paid will remain the same or even higher than it is now. Why do you think wealthy folks pay thousands of dollars to CPAs but to find every conceivable loophole available. Do away with the loopholes and the problem is solved.
Click to expand...

Without details, I'm doubtful. The article has some real points. He does reduce the rate, and that is a cut. Have Ryan give the same detail to closing these loop holes that he does to the rest of his plan.
 
Boo Radley said:
Without details, I'm doubtful. The article has some real points. He does reduce the rate, and that is a cut. Have Ryan give the same detail to closing these loop holes that he does to the rest of his plan.
Click to expand...

If you are looking for details, you must really hate Obama's non-plan.
 
Gill said:
If you are looking for details, you must really hate Obama's non-plan.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan. But I don't believe either party will actually tackle this problem. Ryan knows his plan won't fly. If he thought it would pass, he wouldn't have proposed it. That's my opinion, but as none of this is new, and the previous republican rule largely wasn't concerned abut the deficit, I see no one actually doing anything.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not a fan. But I don't believe either party will actually tackle this problem. Ryan knows his plan won't fly. If he thought it would pass, he wouldn't have proposed it. That's my opinion, but as none of this is new, and the previous republican rule largely wasn't concerned abut the deficit, I see no one actually doing anything.
Click to expand...

If he thought it would pass, he wouldn't have proposed it.

Wow, that's a thoughtful line, even for you....

Only problem is that it did pass, at least in the governing body Ryan is in. Will it become law, probably not but at least it's a start which is more than the Dems and Obama have done.
 
Gill said:

If he thought it would pass, he wouldn't have proposed it.

Wow, that's a thoughtful line, even for you....

Only problem is that it did pass, at least in the governing body Ryan is in. Will it become law, probably not but at least it's a start which is more than the Dems and Obama have done.
Click to expand...

No, it is not law of the land, and won't be. He knows that. That's the point. He faced no risk that it ever would be.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it is not law of the land, and won't be. He knows that. That's the point. He faced no risk that it ever would be.
Click to expand...

Didn't say it was the law of the land did I ??

Too much coffee today ?
 
Gill said:
Didn't say it was the law of the land did I ??

Too much coffee today ?
Click to expand...

I know. But that's the point, so I restated it. It won't be. Ryan knows this as well as we do.
 
Boo Radley said:
I know. But that's the point, so I restated it. It won't be. Ryan knows this as well as we do.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt Ryan thinks it will be passed as is either, but that's not the point. At least Ryan has the balls to start talking about the problem as opposed to doing nothing like Obama and the rest of the Dems have done.

Obama's half-assed plan also has no chance of becoming law. He simply threw it together so he wouldn't look so bad after Ryan presented his.... and it shows.
 
Gill said:
I seriously doubt Ryan thinks it will be passed as is either, but that's not the point. At least Ryan has the balls to start talking about the problem as opposed to doing nothing like Obama and the rest of the Dems have done.

Obama's half-assed plan also has no chance of becoming law. He simply threw it together so he wouldn't look so bad after Ryan presented his.... and it shows.
Click to expand...

There's no balls where there is no risk.
 
Boo Radley said:
There's no balls where there is no risk.
Click to expand...

And you actually think that it took no balls for Ryan to make this proposal ??? If that's what you are saying, then it is one of the most ignorant claims I've seen in awhile. Have you not noticed that Ryan is being ridiculed and lambasted by everyone from the President to leftwing newspapers to anonymous bloggers on the internet.

No, if he wanted to be safe, he would have kept his mouth shut and gone on tv to call his opponents un-American and radical like Obama's been doing for the past week.
 
Gill said:
And you actually think that it took no balls for Ryan to make this proposal ??? If that's what you are saying, then it is one of the most ignorant claims I've seen in awhile. Have you not noticed that Ryan is being ridiculed and lambasted by everyone from the President to leftwing newspapers to anonymous bloggers on the internet.

No, if he wanted to be safe, he would have kept his mouth shut and gone on tv to call his opponents un-American and radical like Obama's been doing for the past week.
Click to expand...

Let me ask this simple question, as it won't become law, what does he have to lose?
 
I would file this under "no duh" but I think the bigger question is, is why are Democrats and Republicans to ***** to actually cut things that majority of Americans wouldn't care about? Namely, they could reduce the defense budget quite a bit but it's politically risky for any party to suggest major cuts. I'd be willing to bet you could cut our defense budget by a 1/3 and we would still have enough military might to rule this world, and whatever other worlds we (could) find in the future.

I think one thing that is inescapable though and is coming just isn't the roll back on bush tax cuts for the rich, that is a given. The roll back of tax cuts for all people is something that will come someday. I don't know how in this political climate such a thing could happen, but it will happen. I think if certain guarantees were given to Americans, it would be met with less backlash, what those guarantees could be other than, universal healthcare though is beyond me.
 
Boo Radley said:
There's no balls where there is no risk.
Click to expand...

LOL!

there's no risk in passing thru house a budget that actually takes on the miserable m's?

where's harry's plan?

where's the 2011 budget?

where's hr one?

where's harry's write up of the slasher's 2012 bid, published in february?

risk---LOL!

what an idiot obama is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom