• 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

I agree, its why I said across the board cuts. Defense, along with SS, makes up our biggest hunk of the budget. Now on one hand, it helps the economy through stabilization as you say while also being a core and clear constitutional responsability of the government. At the same time, attempting to cut spending without looking at Defense is just a ridiculous and hollow excercise. Legitimate cuts need to be made to defense, yet at the same time it can't be the primary or majority target where you're cutting 2 or 3% from entitelements and other programs and cutting 25% from the military budget.

Amazing, in general most Americans are against cuts to an unconstitutional program (SS) that is bankrupting the nation. :doh:
 
Amazing, in general most Americans are against cuts to an unconstitutional program (SS) that is bankrupting the nation. :doh:

You may be surprised to know not everyone agrees it is unconsititutional. I'm sure you're a constitutional scholar, the worlds foremost expert and all, but there is disagreement all the same. :coffeepap


Just to help:

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. The text of those decisions, with dissents, is presented here. (We also include a brief historical essay to help general readers better understand the context of the decisions.)

Social Security Online
 
Last edited:
social security was sold for generations as NOT a welfare program but an insurance system instead

if the cap on taxable income is raised (which it will be), yet another fundamental prop underpinning social security is yanked out

bowles simpson state plainly what an overwhelming consensus of economists for at least a generation have conceded---social security one day is gonna have to be restructured

Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Simpson And Bowles Release Eye-Popping Recommendations | TPMDC

further, its fix is fourfold---raising the cap, raising the age, raising the payroll and freezing the bennies

moreover, mature economists also recognize that no recipe of any three of the above will suffice---all four REVISIONS to the existing agreement are requisite

bottom line---why is a social safety net, especially one of such staggering scale, so fundamentally in need of fixing?

in other words, why can't it keep its promises?

americans are sick of being lied to by their govt

as andrew cuomo in his scorching state of the state said---we pay too much and get too little in return

GOVERNOR ANDREW M. CUOMO STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS | Governor Andrew M. Cuomo

social security, as well as medicare, medicaid and state pensions, are in dire need of imminent reform, if they're not fixed now they'll pass away

so the slasher is on the stump in silicon valley and hollywood

tell him to pick up a phone

call harry
 
I agree, its why I said across the board cuts. Defense, along with SS, makes up our biggest hunk of the budget. Now on one hand, it helps the economy through stabilization as you say while also being a core and clear constitutional responsability of the government. At the same time, attempting to cut spending without looking at Defense is just a ridiculous and hollow excercise. Legitimate cuts need to be made to defense, yet at the same time it can't be the primary or majority target where you're cutting 2 or 3% from entitelements and other programs and cutting 25% from the military budget.

Well, here's the thing.

I don't care if we have military spending. I actually do agree that we need a strong military for national security and defense.

But as has been said one reason why we need a strong military is to provide global stability. Which also provides global security. Which reduces the risks to international financiers, investors, and businessmen.

So how about this? In times of war, conflict, and military deployment we levy a "war tax" on large corporations. That way those who benefit the most from the security provided by the military who protect corporate interests are the ones to pay for the military.

So since corporations are paying for the military, other tax revenues can go to entitlements.

Would you say that that's fairer?
 
The entitlement cuts won't hurt the economy, they primarily affect those that are not contributing to the economy.

Mandatory spending (entitlement programs) needs to be addressed. The current growth rate in such spending is unsustainable and such spending is the primary driver of the nation's long-term imbalances. Having said that, there would be a macroeconomic drag from slowing growth/cutting such spending. A significant proportion of such benefits are spent. Hence, aggregate demand via personal consumption would weaken. Raising the eligibility age would have an inconsequential macroeconomic impact. Needless to say, early action during a time of still abnormally low interest rates and sustainable economic growth would be far better than delay. Delay would lead to growing fiscal risk, larger imbalances, and a need for more painful fiscal consolidation, especially if a crisis erupted.
 
Last edited:
You may be surprised to know not everyone agrees it is unconsititutional. I'm sure you're a constitutional scholar, the worlds foremost expert and all, but there is disagreement all the same. :coffeepap


Just to help:

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. The text of those decisions, with dissents, is presented here. (We also include a brief historical essay to help general readers better understand the context of the decisions.)

Social Security Online

The turd that you keep polishing is bankrupting the country.

President Roosevelt's response to all of this was stunning and unexpected. On February 5, 1937 he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire. Couching his argument as a reform to help relieve the workload burden on the courts, President Roosevelt's unusually blunt language made it clear what he really had in mind: "A part of the problem of obtaining a sufficient number of judges to dispose of cases is the capacity of the judges themselves. This brings forward the question of aged or infirm judges--a subject of delicacy and yet one which requires frank discussion. In exceptional cases, of course, judges, like other men, retain to an advanced age full mental and physical vigor. Those not so fortunate are often unable to perceive their own infirmities. . . A lower mental or physical vigor leads men to avoid an examination of complicated and changed conditions. Little by little, new facts become blurred through old glasses fitted, as it were, for the needs of another generation; older men, assuming that the scene is the same as it was in the past, cease to explore or inquire into the present or the future." 3

The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would get to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court (and 44 judges to lower federal courts) thus instantly tipping the political balance on the Court dramatically in his favor. The debate on this proposal was heated, widespread and over in six months. The President would be decisively rebuffed, his reputation in history tarnished for all time. But the Court, it seemed, got the message and suddenly shifted its course. Beginning with a set of decisions in March, April and May 1937 (including the Social Security Act cases) the Court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation, producing a "constitutional revolution in the age of Roosevelt." 4
Here, right from your link, that ****ing traitor FDR should have gotten his head blown off for what he did to this country. And you people have the balls to talk to us about Bush war crime trials, while you put that traitor on a pedestal.
 
Last edited:
Fix the economy, some tweaks in spending, end our foreign wars and get rid of the so-called Bush tax cut.... the deficit will shrink to manageable proportions.

if you are not willing to pay almost 40c on your next dollar to the federal government you have no credibility in demanding anyone else pay that much either
 
I want changes in how these programs are administered, ending the hand outs and turn them into hands up.

Currently these programs make people dependent and do little to truly help people their lot in life.
 
Raising taxes on the rich will have no such affect.[/QUOTE]

Definitely not 20% but by increased tax on the rich will result in a general increase in unemployment.

Everyone. Don't you think it is time to try and stop polarizing the differences between the two parties. To defeat this deficit that has been caused by a failure of government spanning multiple GOP and Democrat presidential terms, we must use both techniques. First off, a general return to the constitution must be a given for both sides because it is the fundamental law of the land, if you don't agree with it you must get an amendment passed. Thus there must be massive cuts in extraneous programs primarily in the welfare department (which has no constitutional backing) and there must be an increase in taxes especially upon the rich. Throw away the current tax book and turn it into a tax sheet. flat tax for every citizen to a certain level of income and then a progressive tax from there on in (with a time limit, after which we impose a two tiered flat tax system). Currently a great number of companies and individual pay zero taxes yet continue to vote on how that money is spent, which understandably frustrates the average taxpayer.

Democrats be satiated with your increase in taxes upon the rich and Republicans be satisfied with the elimination of a large portion of unconstitutional welfare. This (overly simplified) solution will result in a surplus that would allow us to eliminate the current debt, primary problem solved!
 
Raising taxes on the rich will have no such affect.

Definitely not 20% but by increased tax on the rich will result in a general increase in unemployment.

Everyone. Don't you think it is time to try and stop polarizing the differences between the two parties. To defeat this deficit that has been caused by a failure of government spanning multiple GOP and Democrat presidential terms, we must use both techniques. First off, a general return to the constitution must be a given for both sides because it is the fundamental law of the land, if you don't agree with it you must get an amendment passed. Thus there must be massive cuts in extraneous programs primarily in the welfare department (which has no constitutional backing) and there must be an increase in taxes especially upon the rich. Throw away the current tax book and turn it into a tax sheet. flat tax for every citizen to a certain level of income and then a progressive tax from there on in (with a time limit, after which we impose a two tiered flat tax system). Currently a great number of companies and individual pay zero taxes yet continue to vote on how that money is spent, which understandably frustrates the average taxpayer.

Democrats be satiated with your increase in taxes upon the rich and Republicans be satisfied with the elimination of a large portion of unconstitutional welfare. This (overly simplified) solution will result in a surplus that would allow us to eliminate the current debt, primary problem solved!





why should the rich pay more when they already pay too much
 
Last edited:
I want changes in how these programs are administered, ending the hand outs and turn them into hands up.

Currently these programs make people dependent and do little to truly help people their lot in life.

true and merely making the rich pay more taxes so the others can continue to want more and more stuff from government only increases the problem

the only way the tax system can be used to stop the deficit spending is not to bleed the rich more but to cause most of america to stop being seduced by the promises of big spending politicians who use either the money of the rich or DEBT to buy the votes of the many
 
Indeed they do pay too much right now, yet with the shrinkage of federal government and the guarantee of a a future flat tax (though two tiered) we can eliminate our debts and hopefully keep the federal government in check for a couple decades. A Federal government that stuck to their constitutional responsibility would result in a 15% flat tax with a 25% tax on incomes over 1/2 million (adjusted with inflation). The second tier is only a way to keep the bleeding heart liberals happy, and it ends up being less than our current tax burden.
 
Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem - The Washington Post



Oh, the fickle American public...

I've been saying this for awhile now. Maybe it's time to stop blaming the government for everything and start being introspective about ourselves, the People. Our government is only as competent/effective as the electorate that chooses them.


Bottom line the wealthy need to be taxed MUCH more and put in their fair share. Plus the public unions need to be disolved. Plus the illegal mexicans need to get the hell out of the country!
There. I solved the problem :)
 
Last edited:
Bottom line the wealthy need to be taxed MUCH more and put in their fair share. Plus the public unions need to be disolved. Plus the illegal mexicans need to get the hell out of the country!
There. I solved the problem :)


Libertarian eh? pfft!!!! Get the 47% to pay something first.


j-mac
 
The turd that you keep polishing is bankrupting the country.


Here, right from your link, that ****ing traitor FDR should have gotten his head blown off for what he did to this country. And you people have the balls to talk to us about Bush war crime trials, while you put that traitor on a pedestal.

So, you see law as political. We can't trust either republican judges or democrat judges. Is this your argument? has it ever occured to you that regardless of who appoints who, there is actual law and that judges to do their best to read and understand the law? radical stuff I know, but if we accept your reading, there is no such thing as law.
 
So, you see law as political. We can't trust either republican judges or democrat judges. Is this your argument? has it ever occured to you that regardless of who appoints who, there is actual law and that judges to do their best to read and understand the law? radical stuff I know, but if we accept your reading, there is no such thing as law.

Then I assume that you agree that the lib Wisconson SC agitator should quit wasting the peoples money, and concede right?

j-mac
 
So, you see law as political. We can't trust either republican judges or democrat judges. Is this your argument?

we shouldn't trust anyone with power over us; especially those who are unnaccountable and possess the power to overturn our representative government at will.

has it ever occured to you that regardless of who appoints who, there is actual law and that judges to do their best to read and understand the law?

absolutely there are. there are also many judges who buy that they can twist the law to fill their preferences.
 
we shouldn't trust anyone with power over us; especially those who are unnaccountable and possess the power to overturn our representative government at will.

Not the kind of trust I'm talking about CP. If you believe everything you're told, you're useless and easily fooled. However, if you believe nothing, accept nothing, you're just as useless. If law is nothing more than politics, we have no law.

absolutely there are. there are also many judges who buy that they can twist the law to fill their preferences.

My trouble is that you and others assume anything that is the answer you want is someone twisting the law. That's weak and more excuse making than anything else. It is always possible you're just wrong.
 
Then I assume that you agree that the lib Wisconson SC agitator should quit wasting the peoples money, and concede right?

j-mac

Concede? No. Whine like republcians about the court making law? Hell no. I'd tell them to make a better argument. That is how the system works.
 
So, you see law as political. We can't trust either republican judges or democrat judges. Is this your argument? has it ever occured to you that regardless of who appoints who, there is actual law and that judges to do their best to read and understand the law? radical stuff I know, but if we accept your reading, there is no such thing as law.

What part of "pack the court" don't you get?
 
What part of "pack the court" don't you get?

What part of the law is the law don't you get. And haven't you noticed that packing the court hasn't actually produced the expected results? Why? Because the law actually has some form to it.
 
Back
Top Bottom