• 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!

Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

Actually the longer that we delay reforming Social security and bolstering it.. the more drastic the solutions will have to become and fall squarely on me and my children.

Again, the solution is very, very simple if that is your concern; remove the cap on taxable income.


If debt is of no concern.. (which is your premise) then why do we have to even worry about 2030... why not just borrow more money to pay for full benefits in perpetuity?

We can certainly do that if we want.
 
Again, the solution is very, very simple if that is your concern; remove the cap on taxable income.




We can certainly do that if we want.

Just to be clear again...

to fix social security you contend that we should simply borrow the money to pay for full benefits in perpetuity regardless of debt?.

Yes or no
 
to fix social security you contend that we should simply borrow the money to pay for full benefits in perpetuity regardless of debt?.

Or lift the cap on taxable income. One or the other.
 
So covering the gap by 76% "fixes it"?

I would think that covering 100% would be "fixing it"?

I thought you stated it was a "pretty good first step"...

but now it fixes it.

Must be the new math... :lol:

See post 5141 for reference.
 
See post 5147 and post 5150 for reference.

In case you missed it:

cbd2da6605.png
 
In case you missed it:

cbd2da6605.png

Yeah.. not what was being discussed.. which is removing the cap on taxable social security wages. Which according to your chart.. does not fix social security.

Nice try though.
 
Or lift the cap on taxable income. One or the other.

Why one or the other?

Why not simply borrow the money since according to you there is no issue with debt nor can there be?
 
So covering the gap by 76% "fixes it"?

I would think that covering 100% would be "fixing it"?

I thought you stated it was a "pretty good first step"...

but now it fixes it.

Must be the new math... :lol:

Liberals use a lot of that new math in several different things.
 
Why one or the other?
Why not simply borrow the money since according to you there is no issue with debt nor can there be?

OMG dude, you are the one whining about debt. I gave you the two solutions to your concerns with regards to Social Security. Why do I get the feeling you're just trolling now because you have nothing important or relevant to say?
 
OMG dude, you are the one whining about debt. I gave you the two solutions to your concerns with regards to Social Security. Why do I get the feeling you're just trolling now because you have nothing important or relevant to say?

OMG dude.. you are the one that claimed that debt did not matter...

And now you aren't willing to back that up by stating unequivocally that what we should do is simply borrow the money for social security.. because there is no issue with debt.

Its obvious to all.. that you do have a worry about debt.

If not.. then why did was your solution to raise taxes.. instead of simply borrowing?
 
Liberals use a lot of that new math in several different things.

I have noticed that recently.

Have you noticed that while the liberals here are always telling us how deficits don't matter,, and debt doesn't matter...

That in discussions on tax revenues and the poor and middle class.. they now claim running deficits "prevented us from spending more money on education"?
 
OMG dude.. you are the one that claimed that debt did not matter...

It doesn't matter. I'm addressing the fact that it matters to you. I feel like you're just arguing now for the sake of arguing.


And now you aren't willing to back that up by stating unequivocally that what we should do is simply borrow the money for social security.. because there is no issue with debt.

OR we lift the cap on taxable income. One or the other, as I've said multiple times.


If not.. then why did was your solution to raise taxes.. instead of simply borrowing?

That was a solution to your debt posturing. It was presenting you with two different choices depending on what your level of concern is. Sheesh.
 
It doesn't matter. I'm addressing the fact that it matters to you. I feel like you're just arguing now for the sake of arguing.




OR we lift the cap on taxable income. One or the other, as I've said multiple times.




That was a solution to your debt posturing. It was presenting you with two different choices depending on what your level of concern is. Sheesh.

And again.. you equivocate.

Why don't you simply support your premise?
 
I do support my premise. You're the one trying to impose your premise into my argument.

Good.. then support it.

Should the US simply borrow money to cover shortfalls in social security because the debt does not matter?

Yes or no?
 
I have noticed that recently.

Have you noticed that while the liberals here are always telling us how deficits don't matter,, and debt doesn't matter...

That in discussions on tax revenues and the poor and middle class.. they now claim running deficits "prevented us from spending more money on education"?

Whatever suits their agenda. Just as they cherry pick facts so to can they cherry pick the type of math that they use. If the old math doesn't work then the new math is applied.
 
Good.. then support it.
Should the US simply borrow money to cover shortfalls in social security because the debt does not matter?
Yes or no?

If you don't want to lift the cap on taxable income and aren't concerned about the debt, then yes.
 
But again. it does not fix it. Which is what moderate right accurately pointed out. It does not fix it.

The best way.. which it does not appear to discuss.. increase capital gains on those that pay 15% to 20% and that difference goes to shore ups social security and medicare.

I think a 75-year bump in solvency will "fix" it quite nicely.

By the time another 75 years roll around, there will have been enough unanticipated changes in the economy to adjust for that it won't matter.

With a "permanent" fix, those same unanticipated changes in the economy would likely to derail your "permanent" fix (if you were to come up with one).
 
If you don't want to lift the cap on taxable income and aren't concerned about the debt, then yes.

so again.. you equivocate. What I want or not has no bearing.

Again:

Should the US simply borrow the money to cover shortfalls in social security because the debt does not matter?

YES or NO?
 
I think a 75-year bump in solvency will "fix" it quite nicely.

By the time another 75 years roll around, there will have been enough unanticipated changes in the economy to adjust for that it won't matter.

With a "permanent" fix, those same unanticipated changes in the economy would likely to derail your "permanent" fix (if you were to come up with one).

just to point out the chart he posted has way more than just doing away with the cap.
 
so again.. you equivocate. What I want or not has no bearing.

The entire reason I am engaging in a debate with you is because you complained about debt in the first place. I was addressing your complaints by providing solutions. I don't know what you're trying to prove here...the thread will show that you're just trolling at this point because you have nothing relevant to say. So don't say anything, dude! You don't have to respond.
 
The entire reason I am engaging in a debate with you is because you complained about debt in the first place. I was addressing your complaints by providing solutions. I don't know what you're trying to prove here...the thread will show that you're just trolling at this point because you have nothing relevant to say. So don't say anything, dude! You don't have to respond.

What this thread shows is that you 1. Stated that the debt did not matter nor would every matter.

But .. when pressed you are not willing to unequivocally state that

"the US should simply borrow the money it needs to cover shortfalls in social security because the debt does not matter"..


Why is that? Over and over I have asked you.. and you refuse to answer a simply yes or no question.

Its obvious that you don't want to admit that well yes the debt does matter.
 
Back
Top Bottom