Who Can Tackle the Big Beast (Deficit)? Romney or Obama?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by California Girl, Aug 1, 2012.

  1. hortysir
    Offline

    hortysir In Memorial of 47

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    20,504
    Thanks Received:
    4,052
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Port Charlotte, FL
    Ratings:
    +6,355
    Only 3?

    Better than 7
     
  2. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,202

    Like to know how Obama cut taxes by about 345 billion dollars. How'd he do that? I don't think so.

    Seriously, you want to cut defense by 400 billion? There is not one single member of Congress who would support that. Preposterous. How many jobs you think would be lost int he private sector if you did that?

    150 billion in reduced corp welfare? Sounds great, I'd support that myself. But dems and repubs alike will not support those cuts when it affects their constituents.

    Nothing in what you said supports your contention that new and higher taxes will make a meaningful difference.
     
  3. jimowencassidy
    Offline

    jimowencassidy Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    16
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +4
    I think if Romney gets in, he will do his best, but
    people that need help will be hurting, but it is better off
    than to contine like this.

    Personally, I can only see him stopping the growth of the debt AT BEST
    ( if even that ).
     
  4. onecut39
    Offline

    onecut39 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,524
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +152
    I didn't say I would raise taxes by 70 billion. I would raise them at least to what they were in the 90s. I would prefer to go back to the Reagan era rates.

    We don't supply our defense wholly domestically. We job out most of it to the lowest bidder, China included. Defense spending no longer has the impact it once did.

    We have had 12 years of wet dream conservative economic policy. What did it get us? The worst recession since the great one. That one sordid fact remains. We did everything the Republicans said we should do to make us prosperous.

    It hasn't, and there is no way around that one huge fact.
     
  5. Dr Grump
    Offline

    Dr Grump Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    23,230
    Thanks Received:
    3,380
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    From the Back of Beyond
    Ratings:
    +5,892
    Can we split the job?

    Put Romney in charge of the economy
    Obama in charge of social issues...:D
     
  6. onecut39
    Offline

    onecut39 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,524
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +152
    OK I am a bit off. 41% of an 800 billion stimulus is 328 billion. But then you have to add in the payroll tax cuts. I don't know what that comes to but I am pretty sure it will be more than 17 billion.

    If not I stand corrected.
     
  7. onecut39
    Offline

    onecut39 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,524
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +152
    Yes I do. If you go the austerity route you will kill the economy, driving down revenues and just making it worse.
     
  8. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,202
    So, lay it out for me: where/how are you going to raise taxes enough to get a meaningful reduction? I'm just not seeing it. Be nice if you can supply a link to a study somewhere, but I'm good with just your opinion if you would.

    In Europe, their austerity involved raising taxes more than they cut spending, that's why it hasn't worked so well. You look at the countries in the worst trouble, they're the ones who are spending too much. The more successful ones have managed to control their spending.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2012
  9. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    76,606
    Thanks Received:
    9,142
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +17,495
    Why would anyone want to do that?
     
  10. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,258
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,225
    You are correct about the stimulus, for the most part. While it did work to a certain extent, for the most part it was a mess filled with unnecessary tax breaks and money going to programs that didn't really benefit anyone. The entire thing should have gone to infrastructure; at least we would have something to show for it.

    As for what to do, I think it is very simple, and yes we should have another stimulus, but this time it should all go to infrastructure. Get the money into the private sector and get people working. Aside from that, we need to increase taxes. We don't need to go crazy with tax increases, but we need to increase taxes across the board. The wealthy should pay the bulk of any tax increase, but that doesn't mean we should put everything on them.

    If we can get the economy moving again, tax revenues will increase, so we don't need massive tax increases. But in order to bring the budget somewhat under control we also need spending cuts. The problem is cutting funding to social programs when so many people are out of work is not going to help anything. What we need to concentrate on is cutting long term costs to SS and Medicare. I know Paul Ryan had his plan for Medicare, but it was an absolutely terrible plan that would have left tens of millions without any or only minimal health coverage when they needed it most. In the end, the federal government would have to step in to save all those people. His plan would not have worked. What would work and makes the most sense is raising the retirement age. Many people are against this, but in the end, this is what needs to happen. People are living longer and capable of working longer. These programs were not intended to provide for retirees for fifteen years. The other positive about raising the retirement age is not only would we cut a few years off the front end for people to collect, but since most people would have to work a few more years, they would continue contributing into those funds.

    What we do not need are more tax cuts. American businesses are sitting on over $2 trillion. Taxes being too high is not the reason they are not expanding. The reason they are not expanding is because they see no need to, and they don't see an increased market for their goods or services. By getting long term debt under control, and putting more money into the economy through real infrastructure spending, the economy will start expanding again. While the debt is massive, it is not out of control, yet. We will never pay it off, but we don't have to, we just need to outgrow it. That means that we can actually allow it to increase, but it can't continue increasing at such a fast pace. It can only grow at a pace slower than the expansion of the overall economy. That is how we paid off the debt from WWII. That debt wasn't really paid off; the economy just grew so much bigger that the debt became a spit in the bucket as a percentage of future revenues.

    There are so many good potential solutions. The big problem is that nobody wants to give an inch on anything. Cons refuse the suggestion of higher taxes even though taxes are at their lowest rates in over 60 years, and they want to cut them even lower. They want to cut spending to levels not seen since before the Great Depression. None of their ideas make any logical sense. On the other side, liberals don't seem to think we need to make any spending cuts at all and consider SS and Medicare sacred cows, which they are, but they don't even want to discuss things like raising the retirement age, even though they know the costs of Medicare in particular, are unsustainable the way things are now.

    Anyway, I'm done. Romney is not the answer. Obama is by far the best choice, not because everything he wants to do is going to solve all of our problems. Obama is willing to compromise; the problem is Republicans are not. Without compromise we do not move forward. Until Republicans are willing to come to the table to actually work on real solutions, I will not support them.
     

Share This Page