• 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!

National Debt Nears 20 Trillion Just in Time for Election

Versus 400bn in savings from spending restraint.

??? $400B of spending was not cut. You are trying to apply the deficit reduction to spending reduction but the Sequester was only a reduction of $85B. So you're not clear on what you're talking about.
 
NO! They are not paying more than ever.

Is 39.6% greater than or less than 70%?

So taxes have been cut, but people are paying more than ever, and the rich are paying more than ever. And this equals tax cuts for the rich. GUess we need to agree to disagree.


FFS, if they're paying a smaller percentage on an exponentially larger amount of money, then (GASP!!!) you could BOTH be right!!

They are paying less (percentage of their income in taxes than before) and paying more (actual dollars than before).

But who gives a ****?? If you have to pay millions more in tax dollars, but you're still bringing home twice what you were 10 years ago because your pre-tax income tripled, what difference does it make?
 
FFS, if they're paying a smaller percentage on an exponentially larger amount of money, then (GASP!!!) you could BOTH be right!!

They are paying less (percentage of their income in taxes than before) and paying more (actual dollars than before).

But who gives a ****?? If you have to pay millions more in tax dollars, but you're still bringing home twice what you were 10 years ago because your pre-tax income tripled, what difference does it make?

Oh well in that case, lets take MORE of their property! Im sure there is still a shellfish that we havent studied running on treadmills yet.
 
Oh well in that case, lets take MORE of their property! Im sure there is still a shellfish that we havent studied running on treadmills yet.
How heavy is that goalpost you're carrying?

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
Welp, we're getting close. Total debt is now 19.89T

We've added 90bn in debt just this month.
 
Well at least Obama got the deficit back in positive territory. Can't reduce the debt with a negative deficit. Evidently George W. Bush didn't understand that. Bill Clinton also took a negative deficit into positive territory, after years of deficit spending under his 2 predecessors. Republicans sure have a poor track record in this regard.
 
Many progressives must be celebrating.
 
Many progressives must be celebrating.

Nah, we're regretting the fact that RW morons and liars have run up all this debt by manipulating voters into believing that shoving trillions of dollars at wealthy households through massive and unproductive tax cuts for fat cats would somehow benefit all Americans. We can only hope that eventually the electorate will realise the "trickle down effect" is best characterised as getting pissed on.
 
This is a really troubling issue. We are simultaneously unable as a government to convince the populace to allow an appropriate amount of taxation to cover our expenditures or to agree on how to cut back expenses. The democrats are willing to consider taxation, but also want to promise more programs at the same time. The republicans continue to suggest cutting taxes despite being also unwilling to make changes to Medicare and Social Security while also almost always suggesting increased defense spending.

Why our population continues to accept either of these plans I have no idea and before anyone says it, Donald Trump's plan is just as bad.

Meanwhile, when bipartisan plans to both raise and reform taxes AND cut government expenditures, which is exactly what we need to do, come out, no one is willing to even take a vote on them. I'm not saying I would accept ANY plan, but any reasonable plan, regardless of slant or ideology, would be better than what we have now. And most definitely NOT Donald Trump's Bush-style tax cuts and military spending proposals.
 
Last edited:
The democrats are willing to consider taxation, but also want to promise more programs at the same time.

I don't think it's a promise of more programs, but rather a strengthening of the programs that we already have. Expanding Social Security, opening up Medicare to everyone, higher wages...these aren't new programs that replace something the private sector does at a bargain. Take health insurance, for example...there is no reason we shouldn't have a single-payer system that administers all payments to providers on behalf of the entire population. Insurance companies charge as much as 20% to administer payment, while Medicare runs less than 3% overhead for doing the exact same thing. So why not go with the cheaper option? How does the privatization of administration of premiums benefit you as a consumer? The answer is that it doesn't.
 
I don't think it's a promise of more programs, but rather a strengthening of the programs that we already have. Expanding Social Security, opening up Medicare to everyone, higher wages...these aren't new programs that replace something the private sector does at a bargain. Take health insurance, for example...there is no reason we shouldn't have a single-payer system that administers all payments to providers on behalf of the entire population. Insurance companies charge as much as 20% to administer payment, while Medicare runs less than 3% overhead for doing the exact same thing. So why not go with the cheaper option? How does the privatization of administration of premiums benefit you as a consumer? The answer is that it doesn't.

TomAYto. TomAHto. Both democrats this year and Obama last year were promising programs to use federal dollars for paying college in one way or another. Sure there's Pell grants, but free college is a whole nother thing entirely. I agree we should move towards a single payer system, but that's a new program IMO. Calling it an expansion of Medicare is just rhetoric. Also, I doubt any democrat is willing to propose the tax increase necessary to pay for that. That's the real problem.
 
Both democrats this year and Obama last year were promising programs to use federal dollars for paying college in one way or another.

By taxing the wealthy. So...what's your point? There used to be a day when going to a Public College or University cost next to nothing. Now? The average student loan debt from attending a Public college is $30K. That's disgusting. It also harms the economy because you have new graduates who delay things like starting a family, buying a house, even moving out of their parents' because of the debt they incurred going to public school. Those loans also show up on credit reports, which employers use now in the hiring process. We need a free public college system in the US, for nothing more than to remain competitive with the rest of the world.


I agree we should move towards a single payer system, but that's a new program IMO.

Well, single-payer would just be an expansion of Medicare and would be very simple to do...just remove the disability/age requirement and inch payroll taxes up slightly. It's more than made up from the savings from no longer having to pay outrageous premiums, deductibles, and drug costs.


Also, I doubt any democrat is willing to propose the tax increase necessary to pay for that.

Sanders proposed a 6.2% tax on workers and businesses, replacing the Medicare tax and eliminating Obamacare, it's subsidies, and Medicaid. So by expanding Medicare, you are cutting out Obamacare and Medicaid. So you're trading two (or more if throw in S-Chip) programs for one. The average worker spends about $5K a year on their employer-provided care with the employer paying about $12K. So in total, it costs $17K a year to insure one worker through an employer-provided plan. To pay that much under Sanders' plan would require the worker to have a wage of at least $80K a year (Median income is about $53K a year), or a business of 50 employees to make about $10M a year in profit. Very few firms of 50 employees or less even come close to that, and those that do are mostly in Financial Services (who don't produce anything).
 
By taxing the wealthy. So...what's your point? There used to be a day when going to a Public College or University cost next to nothing. Now? The average student loan debt from attending a Public college is $30K. That's disgusting. It also harms the economy because you have new graduates who delay things like starting a family, buying a house, even moving out of their parents' because of the debt they incurred going to public school. Those loans also show up on credit reports, which employers use now in the hiring process. We need a free public college system in the US, for nothing more than to remain competitive with the rest of the world.




Well, single-payer would just be an expansion of Medicare and would be very simple to do...just remove the disability/age requirement and inch payroll taxes up slightly. It's more than made up from the savings from no longer having to pay outrageous premiums, deductibles, and drug costs.




Sanders proposed a 6.2% tax on workers and businesses, replacing the Medicare tax and eliminating Obamacare, it's subsidies, and Medicaid. So by expanding Medicare, you are cutting out Obamacare and Medicaid. So you're trading two (or more if throw in S-Chip) programs for one. The average worker spends about $5K a year on their employer-provided care with the employer paying about $12K. So in total, it costs $17K a year to insure one worker through an employer-provided plan. To pay that much under Sanders' plan would require the worker to have a wage of at least $80K a year (Median income is about $53K a year), or a business of 50 employees to make about $10M a year in profit. Very few firms of 50 employees or less even come close to that, and those that do are mostly in Financial Services (who don't produce anything).

Sander's plan was also almost universally derided as underfunded and he struggled to explain how he would realistically pass it through Congress. I didn't say I disagreed with the government funding education. I think its extremely important, though governmental encouragement for college attendance through easy to get loans and grants without controls on the cost expansion of said attendance is one of the reasons for the high costs of college. I'm simply pointing out they aren't willing to propose the necessary taxes to pay for it and getting a tax increase through Congress anyway is almost impossible. This doesn't seem likely to change given that voter's expectations for government services and their willingness to pay for those services are extremely divergent. I'm not discussing an ideal situation. I'm discussing reality.
 
Last edited:
Well at least Obama got the deficit back in positive territory. Can't reduce the debt with a negative deficit. Evidently George W. Bush didn't understand that. Bill Clinton also took a negative deficit into positive territory, after years of deficit spending under his 2 predecessors. Republicans sure have a poor track record in this regard.

Say what? The deficit is 587 billion this year. Thats 148bn more than last year. The debt is curretnly 19.84 trillion, twice what it was when Obama took office (not that its all his fault).
 
This is a really troubling issue. We are simultaneously unable as a government to convince the populace to allow an appropriate amount of taxation to cover our expenditures or to agree on how to cut back expenses. The democrats are willing to consider taxation, but also want to promise more programs at the same time. The republicans continue to suggest cutting taxes despite being also unwilling to make changes to Medicare and Social Security while also almost always suggesting increased defense spending.

Why our population continues to accept either of these plans I have no idea and before anyone says it, Donald Trump's plan is just as bad.

Meanwhile, when bipartisan plans to both raise and reform taxes AND cut government expenditures, which is exactly what we need to do, come out, no one is willing to even take a vote on them. I'm not saying I would accept ANY plan, but any reasonable plan, regardless of slant or ideology, would be better than what we have now. And most definitely NOT Donald Trump's Bush-style tax cuts and military spending proposals.

All I point to is that the House did pass a balanced budget plan that balanced the budget in 10 years by reducing healthcare spending, slowing discretionary growth, and stimulating GDP through tax reform. To hopefully have the effect of GDP outgrowing spending. True, it wasnt bipartisan. Maybe Trump will at least sign something the GOP congress pushes through.
 
I don't think it's a promise of more programs, but rather a strengthening of the programs that we already have. Expanding Social Security, opening up Medicare to everyone, higher wages...these aren't new programs that replace something the private sector does at a bargain. Take health insurance, for example...there is no reason we shouldn't have a single-payer system that administers all payments to providers on behalf of the entire population. Insurance companies charge as much as 20% to administer payment, while Medicare runs less than 3% overhead for doing the exact same thing. So why not go with the cheaper option? How does the privatization of administration of premiums benefit you as a consumer? The answer is that it doesn't.

The reason is that its unconstitutional (and thus unpopular). If you want govt to control the healthcare, put it up for a vote. Do you really think 3/4 of the states would ratify it?
 
The reason is that its unconstitutional (and thus unpopular).

What is unconstitutional? What are you talking about? You are saying Medicare is unconstitutional?


If you want govt to control the healthcare, put it up for a vote. Do you really think 3/4 of the states would ratify it?

It's not government control of health care, it's government control over the mechanism by which your health care is paid. That's the difference between health care and health insurance. A difference most people don't seem to understand because most people don't even understand what the function of health insurance actually is.
 
All I point to is that the House did pass a balanced budget plan that balanced the budget in 10 years by reducing healthcare spending, slowing discretionary growth, and stimulating GDP through tax reform. To hopefully have the effect of GDP outgrowing spending. True, it wasnt bipartisan. Maybe Trump will at least sign something the GOP congress pushes through.

I took a look at this plan and, while I would actually love many parts of it, calling it a balanced budget plan is a stretch. I think history has shown that the "cut taxes to increase revenues from growth" does not work at our levels of taxation. Just like Trump's plan, it relies on very...optomistic forecasts on the effect of these tax cuts and deregulation on economic growth. When you look at the broader range of possible outcomes, its more likely that this will not result in more budget deficits.
 
What is unconstitutional? What are you talking about? You are saying Medicare is unconstitutional?




It's not government control of health care, it's government control over the mechanism by which your health care is paid. That's the difference between health care and health insurance. A difference most people don't seem to understand because most people don't even understand what the function of health insurance actually is.

Yes, spending on healthcare is unconstitutional. You wont find it anywhere in the constitution. They make rules to regulate all commerce to keep states from harming each other and thus make commerce regular, but what they do goes far beyond this. And without the consent of the governed. Ill ask again, if medicare, obamacare, schip, etc etc etc were put up for a ratification, would it pass in 3/4 of the states?
 
I took a look at this plan and, while I would actually love many parts of it, calling it a balanced budget plan is a stretch. I think history has shown that the "cut taxes to increase revenues from growth" does not work at our levels of taxation. Just like Trump's plan, it relies on very...optomistic forecasts on the effect of these tax cuts and deregulation on economic growth. When you look at the broader range of possible outcomes, its more likely that this will not result in more budget deficits.

I think cutting taxes to stimulate economic activity is proven (which is part of why every President does it), and production is what is taxed. It doesnt matter, though, if you outspend it. Spending caused deficits, not taxes.

And any good balanced plan should have future adjustments based on real outcomes, such that if spending is too much, or GDP forecasts are high, spending is reduced.
 
So according to you, Medicare is unconstitutional?

Thats what said. Why are you dodging the question about whether it could be ratified by the states? I mean, they voted on income tax, alcohol, womens voting, civil rights, slavery. If healthcare is a human right, lets put it to a vote.
 
Thats what said. Why are you dodging the question about whether it could be ratified by the states? I mean, they voted on income tax, alcohol, womens voting, civil rights, slavery. If healthcare is a human right, lets put it to a vote.

The rest of the western democracies have already voted and the answer is a resounding YES. Only the wealthy who have nothing to worry about would say otherwise. Are you so wealthy that a $500,000 medical bill would not phase you?
 
Thats what said. Why are you dodging the question about whether it could be ratified by the states? I mean, they voted on income tax, alcohol, womens voting, civil rights, slavery. If healthcare is a human right, lets put it to a vote.

Doesn't need to be ratified by the states. What actually needs to be ratified by the states is the belief that Medicare is unconstitutional. Do you know how our government works?
 
Back
Top Bottom