Republican politicians lie when they say they want to stop deficit spending

[Vast LWC]

Clever abuse of the language
"Cut the deficit by 75% and you still" blah blah blah.
How about "Cut Spending by X%" where X is chosen in such a way as to eliminate the deficit altogether.
You know fiscal responsibility - the change people hoped for.
But of course cutting spending would not allow the democrats to buy enough votes.
Finally recall it was a Democratic congress which pushed though the 2008 and 2009 budgets, so they can take the fall for those numbers.

OK, great, let's cut spending by the amount necessary to eliminate the deficit.

Which amounts to the exact same thing, but hey, I"m game.

The deficit is equal to roughly 40% of the spending in the federal budget, which means that to eliminate the deficit, we'd have to cut spending by 40%.

Tell me where you'd like to cut the 40% from, I'd be happy to listen.

Keep in mind that the Military, Social Security, Medicare, and Interest on pre-existing debt make up 65% of the budget, and are increasing with every year, as more and more people reach age 65.

Also keep in mind that "Pork", the strawman of the right, makes up .6% of the budget. If you cut all pork, you'd still have to cut 39.4%.

 

[Vast LWC]

If you don't eliminate the deficit, you need to raise the debt ceiling.

 

[Charles Stucker]

OK, great, let's cut spending by the amount necessary to eliminate the deficit.

Tell me where you'd like to cut the 40% from, I'd be happy to listen.

Eliminate Medicare.
Reduce military spending by 25%, perhaps even eliminate our offensive abilities except for nukes and let the terrorists know the next major attack against the US will see Mecca and Medina flattened. Since Saudi citizens made up most of the 911 forces, that keeps it fair.
Immediately begin phasing out Social Security.
Consolidate all the current regressive OASI, Medicare etc. taxes into the general tax burden so no one can complain that they had to pay into a system and now are not getting any benefit.
Eliminate federal welfare.
Raise taxes by ~ 3% across the board
Anything more needed?

 

[Vast LWC]

Eliminate Medicare.
Reduce military spending by 25%, perhaps even eliminate our offensive abilities except for nukes and let the terrorists know the next major attack against the US will see Mecca and Medina flattened. Since Saudi citizens made up most of the 911 forces, that keeps it fair.
Immediately begin phasing out Social Security.
Consolidate all the current regressive OASI, Medicare etc. taxes into the general tax burden so no one can complain that they had to pay into a system and now are not getting any benefit.
Eliminate federal welfare.
Raise taxes by ~ 3% across the board
Anything more needed?

OK, let's do those things, theoretically.

On the very first item, eliminating Medicare, all those people paid into the system. Are you now proposing that we cut off the benefits that they paid for? Hey, I'm with you, but as soon as that happened, whatever party was in charge would lose about 50% of their support overnight, and most likely never win an election again, ever.

In addition, we'd have a whole bunch of dead old people on our hands, with families suing the shit out of the federal government for wrongful death.

The Military item? I couldn't agree more. I'm totally with you on all points.

For Social Security, I think I might consider raising the retirement age, rather than phasing it out. Again, a whole lot of people paid a whole lot of money into the SS system, and would be ripped off if they never got benefits. If we raise the retirement age to 75, SS becomes fiscally feasible, and targets the people who most need it.

Federal Welfare including Unemployment, or not including Unemployment?

yeah, a 3% tax raise would work.

I think you have some good ideas there.

I think the major issue here is that, unless there is some general pact between the two parties to never use the changes we need to make as political ammunition, there's always going to be some asshole that runs add campaigns blasting their opponent for doing what needs to be done.

Therein lies the problem.

 

[Charles Stucker]

On the very first item, eliminating Medicare, all those people paid into the system. Are you now proposing that we cut off the benefits that they paid for? Hey, I'm with you, but as soon as that happened, whatever party was in charge would lose about 50% of their support overnight, and most likely never win an election again, ever.

I am not that troubled by the problems politicians face. The truth is we should expel all the sitting members of congress at the next election

In addition, we'd have a whole bunch of dead old people on our hands, with families suing the shit out of the federal government for wrongful death.

They would run into the same thing that happened with my dad; Old people die, even with top notch medical care. Lawsuits would not get very far, particularly when the government can refuse to accept the suit.
Even now anyone dependent on medicare/medicaid gets extremely poor treatment by groups that specialize in milking federal programs. It is less humane than euthanasia - my father WANTED to die by the time the quacks had him on his last legs, he was that miserable. Because of Medicare.

 

[Vast LWC]

On the very first item, eliminating Medicare, all those people paid into the system. Are you now proposing that we cut off the benefits that they paid for? Hey, I'm with you, but as soon as that happened, whatever party was in charge would lose about 50% of their support overnight, and most likely never win an election again, ever.

I am not that troubled by the problems politicians face. The truth is we should expel all the sitting members of congress at the next election

In addition, we'd have a whole bunch of dead old people on our hands, with families suing the shit out of the federal government for wrongful death.

They would run into the same thing that happened with my dad; Old people die, even with top notch medical care. Lawsuits would not get very far, particularly when the government can refuse to accept the suit.
Even now anyone dependent on medicare/medicaid gets extremely poor treatment by groups that specialize in milking federal programs. It is less humane than euthanasia - my father WANTED to die by the time the quacks had him on his last legs, he was that miserable. Because of Medicare.

These are good points.

Frankly I think we all realize that something needs to be done to reduce the deficit.

The problem is that we all have different ideas on what needs to be cut, and how.

If we all could actually sit down and compromise, point by point, about various cuts, and do it as a whole, so no-one could point the finger at anyone else and say "it's their fault", then we'd have something.

 

[Foxfyre]

OK, great, let's cut spending by the amount necessary to eliminate the deficit.

Tell me where you'd like to cut the 40% from, I'd be happy to listen.

Eliminate Medicare.

Or at least slowly and incrementally, just as it has accrued, start shifiting the program out of the federal government and putting it with the states and local communities where it should have been left all along.

Reduce military spending by 25%, perhaps even eliminate our offensive abilities except for nukes and let the terrorists know the next major attack against the US will see Mecca and Medina flattened. Since Saudi citizens made up most of the 911 forces, that keeps it fair.

Are you serious here? Let's pretend you are. The only problem I see with this is having a President and Congress or even military generals with the political will to order the strike, especially knowing full well that any may have or have paid for a nuke or two to be aimed at us. And if we failed to follow through on our threat, we would be seen for the paper tigers that we would be, and we would be immediately vulnerable to every ambitious dictator and terrorist out there.

Immediately begin phasing out Social Security.

This is a given, but again it must be done slowly and incrementally just as the problem has accrued to avoid breaking faith with those the government has made dependent on the system.

Consolidate all the current regressive OASI, Medicare etc. taxes into the general tax burden so no one can complain that they had to pay into a system and now are not getting any benefit.

Explain more how this would work and how you would see it accomplishing your goal there.

Eliminate federal welfare.

Yep. The Federal government should have zero ability to use the public treasury to dispense any form of charity or benevolence or benefit to any individual, group, organization, corporation, or nation of any kind. That would immediately eliminate a great deal of corruption and payola both in those dispensing the funds and those receiving them.

Raise taxes by ~ 3% across the board

Why would you do this? Especially in a deep recession?

The other thing that is needed is to elect people to Congress who understand the Constitutional principles as the Founders understood those principles and who will appoint judges to the courts who also understand and appreciate those principles.

 

[Vast LWC]

OK, great, let's cut spending by the amount necessary to eliminate the deficit.

Tell me where you'd like to cut the 40% from, I'd be happy to listen.

Eliminate Medicare.

Or at least slowly and incrementally, just as it has accrued, start shifiting the program out of the federal government and putting it with the states and local communities where it should have been left all along.



Are you serious here? Let's pretend you are. The only problem I see with this is having a President and Congress or even military generals with the political will to order the strike, especially knowing full well that any may have or have paid for a nuke or two to be aimed at us. And if we failed to follow through on our threat, we would be seen for the paper tigers that we would be, and we would be immediately vulnerable to every ambitious dictator and terrorist out there.



This is a given, but again it must be done slowly and incrementally just as the problem has accrued to avoid breaking faith with those the government has made dependent on the system.



Explain more how this would work and how you would see it accomplishing your goal there.

Eliminate federal welfare.

Yep. The Federal government should have zero ability to use the public treasury to dispense any form of charity or benevolence or benefit to any individual, group, organization, corporation, or nation of any kind. That would immediately eliminate a great deal of corruption and payola both in those dispensing the funds and those receiving them.

Raise taxes by ~ 3% across the board

Why would you do this? Especially in a deep recession?

The other thing that is needed is to elect people to Congress who understand the Constitutional principles as the Founders understood those principles and who will appoint judges to the courts who also understand and appreciate those principles.

See, there's the crux of the matter. You're willing to cut all the things that you don't like, but when it comes to the military and raising taxes, you balk.

Do you want to cut the deficit right now, or not?

The point on the Laffer curve where lower taxes produce more revenue in relation to GDP has already been passed, so lower taxes will not help pay the deficit.

 

[Foxfyre]

Eliminate Medicare.

Or at least slowly and incrementally, just as it has accrued, start shifiting the program out of the federal government and putting it with the states and local communities where it should have been left all along.



Are you serious here? Let's pretend you are. The only problem I see with this is having a President and Congress or even military generals with the political will to order the strike, especially knowing full well that any may have or have paid for a nuke or two to be aimed at us. And if we failed to follow through on our threat, we would be seen for the paper tigers that we would be, and we would be immediately vulnerable to every ambitious dictator and terrorist out there.



This is a given, but again it must be done slowly and incrementally just as the problem has accrued to avoid breaking faith with those the government has made dependent on the system.



Explain more how this would work and how you would see it accomplishing your goal there.



Yep. The Federal government should have zero ability to use the public treasury to dispense any form of charity or benevolence or benefit to any individual, group, organization, corporation, or nation of any kind. That would immediately eliminate a great deal of corruption and payola both in those dispensing the funds and those receiving them.

Raise taxes by ~ 3% across the board

Why would you do this? Especially in a deep recession?

The other thing that is needed is to elect people to Congress who understand the Constitutional principles as the Founders understood those principles and who will appoint judges to the courts who also understand and appreciate those principles.

See, there's the crux of the matter. You're willing to cut all the things that you don't like, but when it comes to the military and raising taxes, you balk.

Do you want to cut the deficit right now, or not?

The point on the Laffer curve where lower taxes produce more revenue in relation to GDP has already been passed, so lower taxes will not help pay the deficit.

I'm willing to cut all the things that have proved to be too costly, too inefficient, and/or too ineffective when run by big government. It isn't a matter of not liking them. It is a matter of realistically asessing what works and what doesn't and what we can afford and what we cannot. When there are 50 workers for every retiree, the cost of a small pension to that retiree was scarcely noticed. Soon there will be two tax payers for every retiree. Even the most kool-ade drinking, red blooded, all out, no quit liberal has to be able to see what a problem that is, and why the government cannot sustain such programs without taking most of what we earn and then some.

You certainly will not reduce the deficit by raising taxes that further suppress the economy and cause more lost revenues and more lost jobs. The ONLY way America has EVER reduced a deficit was through increased and vigorous economic growth and cutting taxes in the right way is one way to accomplish that. Raising taxes never is.

I am willing to cut waste, inefficiency, and corruption in our defense complex. I am not willing to cut effectiveness and capability of our national defense as it is a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal government to protect the people from all enemies, within and without. The best defense is the ability to know who hates us enough to hurt us, and the ability to launch an overwhelming offense and make sure everybody who hates us knows that we have it.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm willing to cut all the things that have proved to be too costly, too inefficient, and/or too ineffective when run by big government. It isn't a matter of not liking them. It is a matter of realistically asessing what works and what doesn't and what we can afford and what we cannot. When there are 50 workers for every retiree, the cost of a small pension to that retiree was scarcely noticed. Soon there will be two tax payers for every retiree. Even the most kool-ade drinking, red blooded, all out, no quit liberal has to be able to see what a problem that is, and why the government cannot sustain such programs without taking most of what we earn and then some.

But. I'm agreeing with this. I personally think the problem can be solved by substantially raising the retirement age, but I agree something needs to be done. Perhaps even the methods you all mention.

You certainly will not reduce the deficit by raising taxes that further suppress the economy and cause more lost revenues and more lost jobs. The ONLY way America has EVER reduced a deficit was through increased and vigorous economic growth and cutting taxes in the right way is one way to accomplish that. Raising taxes never is.

That is completely untrue on many counts.

Revenue, according to Laffer, is based on a curve, where if taxes are too low in relation to GDP, revenue decreases, and if taxes are too high in relation to GDP, revenue decreases.

Therefore it is the sweet spot that we aim for.

At the moment, taxes are too low in relation to GDP. A 3% raise would significantly raise revenue.

While economic growth may be slowed slightly by the 3% raise, it will not be enough to cause a decrease in revenue, again, according to Laffer.

So, do you want to stop deficit spending right now, or not?

I am willing to cut waste, inefficiency, and corruption in our defense complex. I am not willing to cut effectiveness and capability of our national defense as it is a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal government to protect the people from all enemies, within and without. The best defense is the ability to know who hates us enough to hurt us, and the ability to launch an overwhelming offense and make sure everybody who hates us knows that we have it.

How is it national defense to continue to insert our troops between North and South Korea?

How is it national defense to continue to occupy Iraq? How was it national defense to invade it in the first place?

How is it national defense to build more F-22's when our airforce far exceeds any other on the face of the planet?

How is it national defense to have troops stationed across the planet in various world policing missions that have nothing to do with our defense?

 

[SFC Ollie]

If you give this congress any additional funds whether it be from a 3% tax increase or a cutback in spending and they will find another way to spend it, + 10%.

 

[Vast LWC]

And in answer to your statement

The ONLY way America has EVER reduced a deficit was through increased and vigorous economic growth and cutting taxes in the right way is one way to accomplish that. Raising taxes never is.

From 1949 to 1951, Truman raised the top tier tax rate from 82% to 91%. It remained at that level until 1964, when Johnson lowered it to 77%.

During this period, capital gains taxes remained at a steady rate of 25%.

From that time on the top tier tax rate continued to decrease until today, when it stands at 35%.

(Source Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org) )

Here is a graph of the deficit in relation to GDP over that time period:

Note the drop in deficit in relation to GDP during the time period I mentioned where taxes were raised.

I'll allow you to draw your own conclusions.

 

[Vast LWC]

If you give this congress any additional funds whether it be from a 3% tax increase or a cutback in spending and they will find another way to spend it, + 10%.

While that may be true of any congress (as congresses seem to love to spend money), if you tie additional revenue in with required spending cuts, you may see a positive result.

 

[Toro]

The point on the Laffer curve where lower taxes produce more revenue in relation to GDP has already been passed, so lower taxes will not help pay the deficit.

That point on the Laffer Curve has never existed in America, at least not for income taxes. It might for some other taxes, such as taxes on resource extraction or corporate taxes. And it is true in some other countries. However, all the evidence suggests that it is not relevant for American income taxes.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/51330-the-laffer-curve-is-wrong.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...know-if-bush-tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...nt-work-in-america-but-it-does-elsewhere.html

 

[Toro]

BTW, we should not raise taxes in a recession.

 

[Vast LWC]

BTW, we should not raise taxes in a recession.

Dang you toro and your logic. LOL.

These guys wanted to eliminate the deficit. I was discussing with them how that would have to work. I figured they'd reach the conclusion that you can't reduce the deficit until the recession is over on their own, eventually, and therefore stop bitching about deficit spending ending "RIGHT NOW".

I personally agree, in general, that you should not raise taxes until the recession is over, for the same reason you should not lower federal spending until the deficit is over.

But rightie-types don't want to hear that, so I figured I'd play along for a bit and see where it went. If they reached the conclusion on their own they might be more amenable to it...

 

[Vast LWC]

The point on the Laffer curve where lower taxes produce more revenue in relation to GDP has already been passed, so lower taxes will not help pay the deficit.

That point on the Laffer Curve has never existed in America, at least not for income taxes. It might for some other taxes, such as taxes on resource extraction or corporate taxes. And it is true in some other countries. However, all the evidence suggests that it is not relevant for American income taxes.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/51330-the-laffer-curve-is-wrong.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...know-if-bush-tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...nt-work-in-america-but-it-does-elsewhere.html

I feel I have to disagree here, but I have to go, so that can be a conversation for another time.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

In the history of this country, nobody has embraced deficit spending like the Republicans

Wrong....The Congress spends money. The President only proposes. Democrats are just as guilty if not more responsible for our National Debt than Republicans.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

BTW, we should not raise taxes in a recession.

Guess what? It's going to happen very soon...Obama has announced he's "agnostic" about raising taxes on "all Americans."

 

[Queen]

pay as you go is all about raising taxes to match spending. Spending itself isnt cut. How about we just restore the Republic and cut the programs the Constitution never authorized to begin with?

No, pay as you go is about ending deficit spending.

Congress cannot spend money without paying for it, like the way it was done during the Clinton admin. Bush ended that policy and spent wildly on 2 wars, medicare drug entitlement and tax cuts for the rich. That's why we have an 11 trillion dollar debt. It was 5 trillion when Bush took office.

The tax cuts for the rich will expire this year and go back to what it was under Clinton. That will help cut the deficit.

The Iraq war will end. That will help cut the deficit.

Don't vote Republican unless you want to end pay as you go.

If you like deficit spending, vote Republican.

And tell me, do you think they are going to raise taxes, or cut spending? Hmmm, I cant imagine we would ever know.

Hmmm, how did the economy do in the 90s before Bush cut taxes on the richest of the rich?

Think back to that time of peace and prosperity. Back in the pay as you go days in America. Unless you're too young to remember, then ask your mom.