Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

[nodoginnafight]

No, deficits are from over spending period. Social Security and Medicare should be funded from their own tax (which we already have). They should live within that revenue. Raiding it was a mistake. End the involvement in two wars should help the military budget. Stay away from health care expansion. Review all federal projects and eliminate as many pork projects as possible.

OK, a deficit, by definition, is the disparity between incoming revenue (taxes) and outgoing spending.

Unfortunately, thanks to Republican administrations, the Social Security fund has already been raided to the point of insolvency.

Compounding that issue are the undeniable facts that: 1) people are living longer lives, and 2) the generation that is currently going into retirement didn't have as many children as their predecessors. This creates an overpopulation of SS and Medicare recipients without enough revenue to pay for it.

Meaning that the only ways to fix the deficit are:

1. Raising the retirement age to 75

2. Decreasing SS and Medicare benefits.

3. Decreasing military spending dramatically.

or

4. Raising taxes.

You can talk about cutting other spending all you want, but cutting spending in other areas, while helpful, will hardly put a dent in the deficit.

Too many people are unaware of exactly where our deficit is coming from. Those who think we can cut pork and elimenate the deficit ..... well ......

It's not really the fault of the people for not understanding. Our elected leaders certainly don't want to shine the spotlight on the real issue - because that would force them into decisions that might hurt their chances of getting re-elected.

There is NO POPULAR road to balancing our checkbook. NONE. And any serious attempt is going to produce some SERIOUS political fallout. That's why our current batch of "deficit hawks" like to wail and moan about the BS stuff on the edges of the issue and turn mum on the CORE of the issue.

But (imho) the Dems and Repubs have been virtually hand-in-hand on this.

 

[Vast LWC]

Too many people are unaware of exactly where our deficit is coming from. Those who think we can cut pork and elimenate the deficit ..... well ......

It's not really the fault of the people for not understanding. Our elected leaders certainly don't want to shine the spotlight on the real issue - because that would force them into decisions that might hurt their chances of getting re-elected.

There is NO POPULAR road to balancing our checkbook. NONE. And any serious attempt is going to produce some SERIOUS political fallout. That's why our current batch of "deficit hawks" like to wail and moan about the BS stuff on the edges of the issue and turn mum on the CORE of the issue.

But (imho) the Dems and Repubs have been virtually hand-in-hand on this.

I agree, no-one wants to make the hard decisions, because if they do, some slime-ball from the other party (whichever party that is) will attack them for it.

If a Republican talks about cutting medicare, you can be sure some democrat opponent will use it against him in the next election cycle.

If a Democrat talks about raising the retirement age, some Republican contender will call him on it come November.

What really has to happen is everyone on both sides of the aisle have to make a single unified statement telling everyone the hard facts of the matter. Unfortunately that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon.

 

[Foxfyre]

Tax cuts a massive drain on revenue. Our deficit, any deficit, is caused by over spending. Obama has unleashed major increases in spending. This is going to be an epic fail.

The deficit is caused by a lack of revenue combined with over spending.

If you wish to cut spending, the Military, Medicare, Social Security, and interest on the debt from previous Republican administrations make up 90% of the budget.

So which one are you planning on cutting?

Obviously it can't be interest on the debt. So, will you cut the Military, Medicare, or Social Security?

No, deficits are from over spending period. Social Security and Medicare should be funded from their own tax (which we already have). They should live within that revenue. Raiding it was a mistake. End the involvement in two wars should help the military budget. Stay away from health care expansion. Review all federal projects and eliminate as many pork projects as possible.

Hard to quarrel with that, but there are other dynamics which are necessary to consider.

Tax increases/fees that pay for direct benefits received are reasonable and are not a drain on the economy. Tax increases that penalize one segment of society in order to buy votes from another not only stifles economic growth but as often as not actually decreases revenues that would otherwise have been received.

Allowing almost half the country to not pay any federal income taxes is a dangerous and viscious circle in which almost half the country suffers no consequences when higher taxes are imposed on the other half. All he has to do is promise goodies to the half who doesn't pay, and a politician can stay in power forever without ever being held accountable for anything.

We are on a fast track in which the deficit will equal or exceed the GDP which of course cannot be sustained and could spell the death of America as we know it. The only way to curb that is to stop spending and roll back spending initiatives already in the pipeline. There isn't enough uncommitted wealth in America to pay off the enormous debt already accrued. The only way to begin paying it down is by initiatives that will encourage private enterprise to again take reasonable risk, expand, grow, and become prosperous again.

A nation's government cannot spend itself into prosperity.

 

[Vast LWC]

Hard to quarrel with that, but there are other dynamics which are necessary to consider.

Tax increases/fees that pay for direct benefits received are reasonable and are not a drain on the economy. Tax increases that penalize one segment of society in order to buy votes from another not only stifles economic growth but as often as not actually decreases revenues that would otherwise have been received.

Allowing almost half the country to not pay any federal income taxes is a dangerous and viscious circle in which almost half the country suffers no consequences when higher taxes are imposed on the other half. All he has to do is promise goodies to the half who doesn't pay, and a politician can stay in power forever without ever being held accountable for anything.

We are on a fast track in which the deficit will equal or exceed the GDP which of course cannot be sustained and could spell the death of America as we know it. The only way to curb that is to stop spending and roll back spending initiatives already in the pipeline. There isn't enough uncommitted wealth in America to pay off the enormous debt already accrued. The only way to begin paying it down is by initiatives that will encourage private enterprise to again take reasonable risk, expand, grow, and become prosperous again.

A nation's government cannot spend itself into prosperity.

That's all well and good, and well written, but again what will you cut?

the Military, Medicare, or Social Security?

If you don't cut one of these 3 programs, you will need to raise taxes to reduce the deficit.

Even if you completely cut funding for every single program that the government funds, including education, highways, communication infrastructure, emergency response services, etc, etc, if you do not cut one of the the 3 big programs, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE A DEFICIT.

 

[saveliberty]

Hard to quarrel with that, but there are other dynamics which are necessary to consider.

Tax increases/fees that pay for direct benefits received are reasonable and are not a drain on the economy. Tax increases that penalize one segment of society in order to buy votes from another not only stifles economic growth but as often as not actually decreases revenues that would otherwise have been received.

Allowing almost half the country to not pay any federal income taxes is a dangerous and viscious circle in which almost half the country suffers no consequences when higher taxes are imposed on the other half. All he has to do is promise goodies to the half who doesn't pay, and a politician can stay in power forever without ever being held accountable for anything.

We are on a fast track in which the deficit will equal or exceed the GDP which of course cannot be sustained and could spell the death of America as we know it. The only way to curb that is to stop spending and roll back spending initiatives already in the pipeline. There isn't enough uncommitted wealth in America to pay off the enormous debt already accrued. The only way to begin paying it down is by initiatives that will encourage private enterprise to again take reasonable risk, expand, grow, and become prosperous again.

A nation's government cannot spend itself into prosperity.

That's all well and good, and well written, but again what will you cut?

the Military, Medicare, or Social Security?

If you don't cut one of these 3 programs, you will need to raise taxes to reduce the deficit.

Even if you completely cut funding for every single program that the government funds, including education, highways, communication infrastructure, emergency response services, etc, etc, if you do not cut one of the the 3 big programs, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE A DEFICIT.

You convinced me. America is unwilling to pay its debt. Where are those US government bankruptcy papers? Notify China. So sorry charlie.

 

[jillian]

You convinced me. America is unwilling to pay its debt. Where are those US government bankruptcy papers? Notify China. So sorry charlie.

So you had no articulate response, eh?

Poor wingnut.....

 

[saveliberty]

You convinced me. America is unwilling to pay its debt. Where are those US government bankruptcy papers? Notify China. So sorry charlie.

So you had no articulate response, eh?

Poor wingnut.....

Oh, I have an answer. Determine a reasonable timeframe to pay off the debt. Divide into the amount due with interest. Cut spending until you can make the payments. If you lose Social Security, too bad. Since we know Congress will not do this. or any other serious debt payment plan, I just cut to the end. Recovery can't occur until you cut your losses and start over. We made the debt, we should pay, not future Americans.

 

[Neotrotsky]

You're refuting your own point and don't even know you're doing it.

very amusing.

Not at all

It is more amusing that you are trying to compare Papa Obama to Reagan when Papa Obama is more like Carter

Of course, it is understandable that you would want to compare him to a successful President like Reagan

 

[jillian]

You convinced me. America is unwilling to pay its debt. Where are those US government bankruptcy papers? Notify China. So sorry charlie.

So you had no articulate response, eh?

Poor wingnut.....

Oh, I have an answer. Determine a reasonable timeframe to pay off the debt. Divide into the amount due with interest. Cut spending until you can make the payments. If you lose Social Security, too bad. Since we know Congress will not do this. or any other serious debt payment plan, I just cut to the end. Recovery can't occur until you cut your losses and start over. We made the debt, we should pay, not future Americans.

Until you address his point, you're just spinning.

 

[Vast LWC]

Oh, I have an answer. Determine a reasonable timeframe to pay off the debt. Divide into the amount due with interest. Cut spending until you can make the payments. If you lose Social Security, too bad. Since we know Congress will not do this. or any other serious debt payment plan, I just cut to the end. Recovery can't occur until you cut your losses and start over. We made the debt, we should pay, not future Americans.

"If you lose Social Security, too bad."

Wow, just consign millions of old people to death through starvation.

A bit ruthless, don't you think?

 

[Vast LWC]

I was thinking raise the retirement age, raise taxes, and cut military spending myself, at least until the debt is paid off anyway.

But hey, I guess starving all the old people is another way to go...

 

[saveliberty]

Oh, I have an answer. Determine a reasonable timeframe to pay off the debt. Divide into the amount due with interest. Cut spending until you can make the payments. If you lose Social Security, too bad. Since we know Congress will not do this. or any other serious debt payment plan, I just cut to the end. Recovery can't occur until you cut your losses and start over. We made the debt, we should pay, not future Americans.

"If you lose Social Security, too bad."

Wow, just consign millions of old people to death through starvation.

A bit ruthless, don't you think?

So you agree we don't have the resolve to pay back the loans. Then bankruptcy is the alternative. What are you going to choose? Pretty ruthless to make future genreations pay for our mistakes too, but you seem prepared to pass the buck.

 

[Vast LWC]

So you agree we don't have the resolve to pay back the loans. Then bankruptcy is the alternative. What are you going to choose? Pretty ruthless to make future genreations pay for our mistakes too, but you seem prepared to pass the buck.

I'm not, see the post that followed.

 

[DiveCon]

Too many people are unaware of exactly where our deficit is coming from. Those who think we can cut pork and elimenate the deficit ..... well ......

It's not really the fault of the people for not understanding. Our elected leaders certainly don't want to shine the spotlight on the real issue - because that would force them into decisions that might hurt their chances of getting re-elected.

There is NO POPULAR road to balancing our checkbook. NONE. And any serious attempt is going to produce some SERIOUS political fallout. That's why our current batch of "deficit hawks" like to wail and moan about the BS stuff on the edges of the issue and turn mum on the CORE of the issue.

But (imho) the Dems and Repubs have been virtually hand-in-hand on this.

I agree, no-one wants to make the hard decisions, because if they do, some slime-ball from the other party (whichever party that is) will attack them for it.

If a Republican talks about cutting medicare, you can be sure some democrat opponent will use it against him in the next election cycle.

If a Democrat talks about raising the retirement age, some Republican contender will call him on it come November.

What really has to happen is everyone on both sides of the aisle have to make a single unified statement telling everyone the hard facts of the matter. Unfortunately that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon.

that has actually hit the nail square on the head, we dont have statesmen anymore
we have professional politicians that only care about re-election

 

[Vast LWC]

that has actually hit the nail square on the head, we dont have statesmen anymore
we have professional politicians that only care about re-election

Wow, I think we agree on something. Hell must have frozen over.

 

[DiveCon]

that has actually hit the nail square on the head, we dont have statesmen anymore
we have professional politicians that only care about re-election

Wow, I think we agree on something. Hell must have frozen over.

we agree on the problem, but not the solution

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh, I have an answer. Determine a reasonable timeframe to pay off the debt. Divide into the amount due with interest. Cut spending until you can make the payments. If you lose Social Security, too bad. Since we know Congress will not do this. or any other serious debt payment plan, I just cut to the end. Recovery can't occur until you cut your losses and start over. We made the debt, we should pay, not future Americans.

"If you lose Social Security, too bad."

Wow, just consign millions of old people to death through starvation.

A bit ruthless, don't you think?

So you agree we don't have the resolve to pay back the loans. Then bankruptcy is the alternative. What are you going to choose? Pretty ruthless to make future genreations pay for our mistakes too, but you seem prepared to pass the buck.

We cannot ethically or morally refuse to pay promised benefits to social security recipients after forcing them to pay into the system for their entire lives. But we can begin to reverse it. We can begin by gradually easing out of it the beneficiaries that it was never intended to include. Next we can continue to gradually increase the eligibility as we have been doing and gradually beginning to privatize it at the Federal level. If the States want to pick it up at the state level, that would be their prerogative, or we can make it possible for people to invest and own their social security in a way that they are not allowed to do now.

It took us more than 60 years to get into the current mess, but all agree the program is not sustainable as it is. It will probably take decades to ease out of it without breaking our contract with the people, but it can be done without starving or cheating anybody. The alternative is certain insolvency in which case everybody will lose their money.

 

[Vast LWC]

We cannot ethically or morally refuse to pay promised benefits to social security recipients after forcing them to pay into the system for their entire lives. But we can begin to reverse it. We can begin by gradually easing out of it the beneficiaries that it was never intended to include. Next we can continue to gradually increase the eligibility as we have been doing and gradually beginning to privatize it at the Federal level. If the States want to pick it up at the state level, that would be their prerogative, or we can make it possible for people to invest and own their social security in a way that they are not allowed to do now.

It took us more than 60 years to get into the current mess, but all agree the program is not sustainable as it is. It will probably take decades to ease out of it without breaking our contract with the people, but it can be done without starving or cheating anybody. The alternative is certain insolvency in which case everybody will lose their money.

You are stealing from Peter to pay Paul in this scenario.

• If you stop paying benefits, old folks lose their investment and die.
  
• If you continue to pay benefits and phase younger folks out of the program, then you are effectively raising taxes on younger folk and their employers by 12% (the amount of payroll taxes) and giving that money to old folks.
  
• If you continue to pay benefits and stop charging young folks SS tax, then you are adding 20 Trillion dollars onto the deficit to be paid by future generations.

Which means that the only way to go at this point is to make Social Security solvent again, and then if you want to do away with the program, you do it at a later date, when there is not such a huge disparity in numbers between young and old people.

There is an easy way to make Social Security solvent. Raise the retirement age at which you begin to get benefits.

As this huge generation of baby-boomers didn't have many children, when they eventually die off, the population disparities will even out, and we will be in a better position to keep or do away with the system.

If the people who are set to start getting benefits soon have an issue with that, they will have to be told in no uncertain terms that they chose to 1) have an easier early life by not having many children, and 2) use their Social Security Fund money to pay for federal spending over the last few decades,

and now they must face the consequences of their own actions.

 

[Foxfyre]

We cannot ethically or morally refuse to pay promised benefits to social security recipients after forcing them to pay into the system for their entire lives. But we can begin to reverse it. We can begin by gradually easing out of it the beneficiaries that it was never intended to include. Next we can continue to gradually increase the eligibility as we have been doing and gradually beginning to privatize it at the Federal level. If the States want to pick it up at the state level, that would be their prerogative, or we can make it possible for people to invest and own their social security in a way that they are not allowed to do now.

It took us more than 60 years to get into the current mess, but all agree the program is not sustainable as it is. It will probably take decades to ease out of it without breaking our contract with the people, but it can be done without starving or cheating anybody. The alternative is certain insolvency in which case everybody will lose their money.

You are stealing from Peter to pay Paul in this scenario.

• If you stop paying benefits, old folks lose their investment and die.
  
• If you continue to pay benefits and phase younger folks out of the program, then you are effectively raising taxes on younger folk and their employers by 12% (the amount of payroll taxes) and giving that money to old folks.
  
• If you continue to pay benefits and stop charging young folks SS tax, then you are adding 20 Trillion dollars onto the deficit to be paid by future generations.

Which means that the only way to go at this point is to make Social Security solvent again, and then if you want to do away with the program, you do it at a later date, when there is not such a huge disparity in numbers between young and old people.

There is an easy way to make Social Security solvent. Raise the retirement age at which you begin to get benefits.

As this huge generation of baby-boomers didn't have many children, when they eventually die off, the population disparities will even out, and we will be in a better position to keep or do away with the system.

If the people who are set to start getting benefits soon have an issue with that, they will have to be told in no uncertain terms that they chose to 1) have an easier early life by not having many children, and 2) use their Social Security Fund money to pay for federal spending over the last few decades,

and now they must face the consequences of their own actions.

Are you SURE you read what I wrote that you quoted here? If you did you would see that I am saying it would be cruel and immoral to stop paying benefits. We already ARE raising the eligibility age little by little every year. We should continue to do that but very slowly so that we don't break faith with the people.

Again it took us more than 60 years to get from the beginning extremely modest program to the humongous unsustainable entitlement that we now have. But we can begin to slowly reverse it.

Please read my comments again. If you can fault them fine. But please don't misrepresent them.

 

[Vast LWC]

Are you SURE you read what I wrote that you quoted here? If you did you would see that I am saying it would be cruel and immoral to stop paying benefits. We already ARE raising the eligibility age little by little every year. We should continue to do that but very slowly so that we don't break faith with the people.

Again it took us more than 60 years to get from the beginning extremely modest program to the humongous unsustainable entitlement that we now have. But we can begin to slowly reverse it.

Please read my comments again. If you can fault them fine. But please don't misrepresent them.

Mmmm I see your point. I think it was the "never intended to include" line that I missed, meaning, I assume, people who are not old and infirm that receive benefits anyway.

My bad.