• 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 Up $2 Trillion on Obama's Watch

I support cutting one of our biggest sources of waste that doesn't produce anything, military spending could easily be cut in half.

I have alread lodged my complaint against our wasteful military spending with my congressional representatives and here.
 
350px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png


Damn, look at that... 23%

Yeah, you really don't know about military spending do you?
 
I support cutting one of our biggest sources of waste that doesn't produce anything, military spending could easily be cut in half.
Cutting military spenidng, the darling of the left, in real terms, does nothing to address the defict of the debt - as stated before, the INCREASE in entitlement spenidng from FY2009 to FY2010 is 76% of total DoD outlays and equal to all of the money we've spent in Iraq.

When you people decide you're serious about cutting the deficit and are willing to actually address the problem of run-away entitlement spending, come see me.
 
350px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png


Damn, look at that... 23%

If you exclude the emergency and supplementary funding it is. However if you include all military funding our ineffective war on terror has cost us trillions of dollars over the last 9 years.

"For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.[1][2]

When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009 the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than Obama had requested. [3][4] Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff expected an additional supplemental spending bill, possibly in the range of $40–50 billion, by the Spring of 2010 in order to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. [5]Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6]
[edit] Emergency and supplemental spending

The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures listed below.[7] In addition, the Pentagon has access to black budget military spending for special programs which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures. Starting in the fiscal year 2010 budget however, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are categorized as "Overseas Contingency Operations" and included in the budget.

By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Indirect costs such as interest on the additional debt and incremental costs of caring for the more than 33,000 wounded borne by the Veterans Administration are additional. Some experts estimate these indirect costs will eventually exceed the direct costs."
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States]Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Hardly chump change, and our people have received no benefit from it as they have with SS and M/M.
 
None of you is any better at cutting the deficit that the Congress is.

Cut military spending in half, and you've saved about $340 billion out of a deficit of 1.4 trillion, still leaving over a trillion dollar deficit.

Cut "entitlements"? Does that mean Social Security? Up to this year, SS has been a net gain to the federal government. Had it been cut out, the deficit would actually have increased, at least on paper. Of course steal... I mean borrowing from SS is a part of the deficit, but a part that hasn't been acknowledged.

SS is a part of the money used to borrow from, not a part of the deficit.

Now, here's the situation:

A hundred dollar bill weighs one gram. It follows then, that a thousand of them weighs a kilogram, and a million weighs a ton and is worth a hundred million.

A billion dollars in hundreds, then, weighs in at ten tons, and a trillion at ten thousand tons. The national deficit (not the debt!) amounts to fifteen thousand tons of hundreds.

Divide those hundreds up into pallets of a half ton each, and you have thirty thousand pallets to load to send to Washington.

Were you a fork lift operator loading those pallets of hundreds, you would have to load one every six minutes, work ten hours per day and six days per week to load 600 pallets per week. After fifty weeks of this, with no holidays, you would have loaded the whole thirty thousand. You would then have a two week holiday before starting to load the next year's hundreds.

That's the size of the deficit. Do you still think there is a simple solution?
 
None of you is any better at cutting the deficit that the Congress is.

Cut military spending in half, and you've saved about $340 billion out of a deficit of 1.4 trillion, still leaving over a trillion dollar deficit.

Cut "entitlements"? Does that mean Social Security? Up to this year, SS has been a net gain to the federal government. Had it been cut out, the deficit would actually have increased, at least on paper. Of course steal... I mean borrowing from SS is a part of the deficit, but a part that hasn't been acknowledged.
On the contrary...
Cutting SS spending in no way necessitates cutting the revenue that SS brings in.

That's the size of the deficit. Do you still think there is a simple solution?
Yes. Cut spendng to the same level as revenue.
The question is not how to deal with the deficits, but if our elected officials have the political will to do it.
 
On the contrary...
Cutting SS spending in no way necessitates cutting the revenue that SS brings in.


Oh, so you want to continue to collect 8% in taxes from every worker in the US, along with 8% from the employer, and yet not give back the benefits that 16% is supposed to provide. Nice. Why not just raise taxes by 16% or so while you're at it? Why even pretend that the money being withheld is supposed to be used for the benefit of the person paying it? I suppose that is really what has been happening, in a way, as that 16% has been stolen in an unsuccessful attempt to balance the budget anyway. Just call it what it is: a tax on working people.

Yes. Cut spendng to the same level as revenue.
The question is not how to deal with the deficits, but if our elected officials have the political will to do it.

I'm not so sure that cutting spending is as simple as you think it is, but it is true that our elected officials don't have the political will to do it.

We'd probably not reelect them if they did.
 
I think it's absurd to try to blame Obama for all of this. A huge portion of the shortfall is due to economic factors and other events that are entirely out of his control. You can lambaste him for individual instances of spending like the most recent jobs bill or the proposed health care bill, but to take the entire deficit and place it on him is just unfair.

And yes, I know people did the same thing with regards to Bush, but that was stupid as well. I know that many here objected to that when the other side did it, so why not stick to that principle and object to it here?

So you are OK with how much Barry is spending?..... really?
 
Oh, so you want to continue to collect 8% in taxes from every worker in the US, along with 8% from the employer, and yet not give back the benefits that 16% is supposed to provide

HAHAH. Welcome to the club of progressive taxation!!!

On the left you have the ping pong tables and pool tables.
On the right the bar...no alcohol before noon though, before you ask!
And straight on back is the socializing area were you get to join the rest of the people lamenting about how they can't understand why government takes more from them, then it pays back to them.

You win!!!

So now that you're self-admittedly opposed to the absurdity of such a system, can you really ever debate against it again?
 
Last edited:
Oh, so you want to continue to collect 8% in taxes from every worker in the US, along with 8% from the employer, and yet not give back the benefits that 16% is supposed to provide. Nice.
FICA is just a tax like any other; the fact that is is supposed to go to a certain spending program means nothing. There's absolutely no necessary relationhip between cuting SS spending and lowering SS taxes.
My statement stands, and negates your argument.

I'm not so sure that cutting spending is as simple as you think it is, but it is true that our elected officials don't have the political will to do it.
We'd probably not reelect them if they did.
-I- would.
 
FICA is just a tax like any other; the fact that is is supposed to go to a certain spending program means nothing. There's absolutely no necessary relationhip between cuting SS spending and lowering SS taxes.

Here I thought you were a conservative, and you make an argument to continue taxation, and allow the government to do whatever it pleases with the money.

SS was supposed to have been a retirement plan. Stealing the money for other things was and is wrong.

If we're going to end SS, then it makes sense to end the tax as well.

-I- would.

I don't think you can elect anyone by yourself.
 
Here I thought you were a conservative, and you make an argument to continue taxation, and allow the government to do whatever it pleases with the money.
Wow. You needed a straw man THAT badly?

Again:
Cutting spending on SS benefits in no way necessitates that FICA taxes be lowered.
Tell me where I am wrong.

SS was supposed to have been a retirement plan. Stealing the money for other things was and is wrong
.
1: It was not; it was intended as a supplement.
2: The Dems started doing it in the 50s and its been done ever since. Any argument that FICA taxes are somehow sacrosanct died almost 60 years ago.,
 
Wow. You needed a straw man THAT badly?

Again:
Cutting spending on SS benefits in no way necessitates that FICA taxes be lowered.
Tell me where I am wrong.

You're wrong when you defend the practice of collecting money for social security, then spending it on the day to day operations of the government. If a private company did that, it would rightly be called fraud. As it is, it should still be called fraud.

And you're wrong when you call my argument a "straw man". You're the one advocating that SS taxes be collected, then spent on something else. However you look at it, that is fraud and thievery. I'm surprised that any conservative would look at it any other way.

.
1: It was not; it was intended as a supplement.

It was not intended to fund anything but the SS system, whether that is the main retirement plan or a "supplement" is immaterial.."

2: The Dems started doing it in the 50s and its been done ever since. Any argument that FICA taxes are somehow sacrosanct died almost 60 years ago.,

Not so. the Dems didn't start doing it until they had to fund LBJ and his "great society" in the '60s.

Does that make a difference somehow?
 
You're wrong when you defend the practice of collecting money for social security, then spending it on the day to day operations of the government. If a private company did that, it would rightly be called fraud. As it is, it should still be called fraud.

And you're wrong when you call my argument a "straw man". You're the one advocating that SS taxes be collected, then spent on something else. However you look at it, that is fraud and thievery. I'm surprised that any conservative would look at it any other way.
You are either arguing a straw man or you sijply do not understand what I am saying. You decide.

And, as I said, the idea that FICA is some sort of special sacrosanct tax died long ago. All of the FICA taxes go into the general fund and all of the SS benefit paymentsw come out of th egeneral fund, Reducing the latter in no way necessitates reducing the former.
 
National Debt Up $2 Trillion on Obama's Watch - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Just so you know, the $2T in debt run up by The Obama in just 421 days is the same as all of GWB's budget deficits, over all eight years, combined.

Let the excuses begin... er... continue.

I dont think people can even FATHOM what that amount means. When your personal check book is $100.00 overdrawn we are sweating bullets. If it gets to be $1000.00, there would be some sense of panic. When California finds themselves with a $50,000,000,000.00 debt they are on the verge of BANKRUPTCY. Yet...our congress...yes...republicans AND democrats...routinely write bad checks with US TAXPAYER dollars without regard to how much or who it costs. Congress just upped the debt ceiling to 15 trillion...which is a pretty good indicator that by the end of the year they fully intend to SPEND that much. And thats JUST the debt. Thats JUST the deficit.

And people cant wait to blog about their petty partisan ideologies.

The debt TRANSCENDS parties. WE are the ones stuck with the bill. Well...no...thats not true...ourt great grandkids will be stuck paying for this.
 
is that possibly because bush inherited a surplus, and obama certainly did NOT?

This is directed to really everyone...

Is it POSSIBLE that this isnt ABOUT Bush...or Clinton...or Obama...but about CONGRESS...house AND senate, republicans AND democrats that BOTH ram pork into spending bills and BOTH refuse to maintain ANY semblance of fiscal responsibility...

And we get distracted by arguing about sparklies...
 
So you are OK with how much Barry is spending?..... really?

Where did I say that?

It's perfectly fine to criticize Obama for his spending. However, our deficit is not entirely due to his choices in spending - it's also due to a huge drop in revenues. That's why I'm saying he can't be blamed for all of it, much like it was foolish to blame Bush for the portion of the economic downturn caused by 9/11.
 
You are either arguing a straw man or you sijply do not understand what I am saying. You decide.

And, as I said, the idea that FICA is some sort of special sacrosanct tax died long ago. All of the FICA taxes go into the general fund and all of the SS benefit paymentsw come out of th egeneral fund, Reducing the latter in no way necessitates reducing the former.

Oh, I understand what you're saying. Since FICA taxes were put into the general fund years ago and spend on the day to day operations of government, that makes it OK. Therefore, since FICA taxes have been spent and IOUs issued instead of keeping the money in a trust as should have been done, now it's OK to continue to collect those taxes, ignore the 2.5 trillion in IOUs, and stop funding the program that they were supposed to fund.

In other words, the government has been stealing those funds for so long that it's OK to continue to steal them and screw the taxpayers.

My position is that the money should be put back into a trust fund and the IOUs paid back. Of course, that will never happen for the same reason that the feds will never balance the budget: It's much easier to keep on spending and let future generations worry about the results. No one wants their taxes increased, of course, and no one wants their programs cut, so the borrow and spend model is here to stay, at least until the house of cards simply collapses.
 
Oh, I understand what you're saying. Since FICA taxes were put into the general fund years ago and spend on the day to day operations of government, that makes it OK. Therefore, since FICA taxes have been spent and IOUs issued instead of keeping the money in a trust as should have been done, now it's OK to continue to collect those taxes, ignore the 2.5 trillion in IOUs, and stop funding the program that they were supposed to fund.

In other words, the government has been stealing those funds for so long that it's OK to continue to steal them and screw the taxpayers.
OK or not OK, that's what's been happening. The fact that things do not work how they were supposed to work, they have not worked that way for over 50 years, and will not go back to the way they were supposed to work carries far more weight than 'well, it was set up so that...'.

Noen of this changes the fact that nothing about a benefit decrease necessitates a commesurate reduction in taxes.

And aside from that, there's nothing to say that any surplus in FICA taxes resulting from SS benefit reduction has to go to general spending - it can always go to reducing the trust fund IOUs.

Further, the current SS surplus ended this year and SS now operates at a deficit.

No one wants their taxes increased, of course, and no one wants their programs cut, so the borrow and spend model is here to stay, at least until the house of cards simply collapses.
That -is- likely the case, at which point the only valid currency will be ammunition.
 
Further, the current SS surplus ended this year and SS now operates at a deficit.

Yes, time to start cashing in that 2.5 trillion in IOUs.



That -is- likely the case, at which point the only valid currency will be ammunition.

Cigarettes will be a good trade item, too.
 
You're not going to subtract the seven hundred trillion that Obama can't be responsible for in any sense because he had no control over because the actions that caused them were made in the distant past, are you? Only 1.3 trillion is properly apportioned to Obama decisions.

Im only guessing...but you HAVE to mean several hundred million or billion...right?

ONLY 1.3 trillion is appointed to Obamas decisions? ONLY??? On a total historical US debt of 13.5 trillion...ONLY 1.3 (and its more like 2 and the dems just raised the debt ceiling to 15 trillion, so expect another 1.5 trillion in deficit spending before the year is out) trillion.

Only.

Can you even FATHOM what that 1.3 trillion in the first year costs US taxpayers?


And for the record...the REASON I am a card carrying Libertarian is BECAUSE Bush did a lousy job himself of controlling spending. And congress...both sides carry the blame. But shame on you and anyone else that defends this kind of fiscal irresponsibility in the name of political ideology. Good Lord...ONLY 1.3 trillion is REALLY Obamas fault.
 
How much is 1.3 trillion? Well, divide it up equally among a hundred million taxpayers, which must be more or less how many there are, and you have 1.3 x 10 ^12/1.0 x10 ^ 8, = 1.3 x10^4. Big numbers are a lot easier when you use scientific notation. Oh yes, that is 13,000 bucks of your money and my money, that's all, just 13 grand in a little over a year put on your MasterCard, and yours, and yours, and... dang it! There it is on mine, too!
 
Downsizing America

...Ongoing annual budget shortfalls in the trillions of dollars will, by 2019, cause publicly held federal debt to exceed 100% of the gross domestic product. Together with all the trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities, the United States will be, in essence, a bankrupt nation.

Deficit spending (program expenses exceeding dedicated revenue) began on Medicare (2008) and Social Security (2010). Social Security cash surpluses, which have been used to help finance other government activity, will no longer be available to supplement the rest of the federal budget. By 2019, these programs will require at least $160 to $200 billion a year in borrowing to keep up with promised benefits.

As a result of all the massive borrowing, the annual interest liability by 2019 will approach $900 billion annually. (2009: $187 billion.) Within nine years, spending on Medicare, Social Security, and interest will account for 97% of all federal revenue.

The quick and glib answer to all this is to reduce spending to cover the deficit expenditures. However, total spending between 2010 and 2019 will be $8.5 trillion (27%) more than revenues. Will the majority of the public stand for reducing a monthly social security check by 27% or cutting Medicare reimbursements, defense spending, welfare, and unemployment, et al by a similar 27%?...

..However, the Obama administration's solution is to focus solely on raising taxes while proposing ever-expanding government spending. Beyond allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2011, the double-edged purpose of the Cap-and-Trade, Health Care Reform, and Financial Reform bills is to raise taxes and fees while furthering government interference into the day-to-day lives of all Americans. The end result of the current policy by this White House and the Democrats in Congress will be to stifle economic activity, further reducing revenues to the government and exacerbating the very real possibility of national bankruptcy...

...This is now a true global market in which the United States must be competitive. The ideal of a world economy is now a reality. Countries such as China and India have begun to develop a middle class and raise the overall standard of living for their populations. In order to compete and continue this growth, these nations must attract intellectual and investment capital to their shores. They can do so with lower taxes, fewer regulations, a benign legal environment, and lower labor costs.

Thanks to new technology and global communication, major financial firms and their activities can now headquarter in Shanghai, Singapore, or Dubai rather than New York and still serve their worldwide clients. Manufacturing companies can seek out the country with the most advantageous business factors and get their products to a global market as a result of the enormous advances in shipping capacities.

With the rise of the middle class in these once-third-world countries, the populace is better-educated and technologically savvy. Research and development, a United States strength, will accelerate its shift overseas...

...The consensus of economic forecasters reveals what may be an overly optimistic average GDP growth rate of 3.1% for the years 2010 to 2015. However, spending by government at all levels (federal, state, and local) will increase an average of 6% per year during this same period, resulting in government spending, for the first time since World War II, being 50% of GDP.
 
Back
Top Bottom