• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

What is the Dem plan to make our entitlement programs sustainable?

RJKarl said:
Cutting taxes will destroy the country. It's just that simple.

We need the top brackets to back up to where they were under Clinton, cut defense, means test SS and Medicare.
Click to expand...

As a Republican, I actually have no problem with raising taxes back to whatever they were under Clinton.

In the spirit of compromise, Democrats will have to agree to cut government spending on everything to what it was under Clinton as well. So defense gets cut back, as does Social Security, as does welfare, as does all other social programs.
 
rjequalsmj said:
lol, like thatll ever happen google used loopholes to get around 3.1 bill in taxes over the last few years.
Click to expand...

Who's fault is that? What's Google supposed to say to investors? "We know there were legal ways for us to avoid paying $3.1B in taxes, but we chose to pay them anyway."

I don't know why people get mad at corporations for using legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes. We set the corporate rate at 35%, highest in the developed world, then fill the code with all kinds of ways to get out of paying it - like "green energy". The people who are screaming that GE paid no corporate income tax last year are the same people who pushed for the green energy incentives that enabled them to do so.

We are also the only major country to impose that high national rate on all international earnings of domestic companies. And then we're angry when they keep those profits overseas? Why? They're just doing what the system incents them to do.

Blame the people who wrote the tax laws, not the corporations that comply with them.
 
GaDeac said:
As a Republican, I actually have no problem with raising taxes back to whatever they were under Clinton.

In the spirit of compromise, Democrats will have to agree to cut government spending on everything to what it was under Clinton as well. So defense gets cut back, as does Social Security, as does welfare, as does all other social programs.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I wouldn't have a problem paying more taxes; I have a problem paying more taxes to a government that lacks any incentive to be a responsible steward of funds.
 
GaDeac said:
As a Republican, I actually have no problem with raising taxes back to whatever they were under Clinton.

In the spirit of compromise, Democrats will have to agree to cut government spending on everything to what it was under Clinton as well. So defense gets cut back, as does Social Security, as does welfare, as does all other social programs.
Click to expand...

You can't do that becasue there are more old people now than then. There are also many more poor people. You can't do without creating tremendous hardship to those can least afford to have anything taken from them.
 
RJKarl said:
You can't do that becasue there are more old people now than then. There are also many more poor people. You can't do without creating tremendous hardship to those can least afford to have anything taken from them.
Click to expand...

And this is the crux of the problem. You say Republicans have to give up what they believe in - tax cuts, funding defense at its current level, etc. - but you (and by you I mean Democrats) aren't willing to make the cuts that need to be made for us to get back to the balanced budget that most Democrats laud Clinton for. Meanwhile, the majority of Republicans say, we aren't going to give up our tax cuts and defense spending while the social programs are having money poured into them. So nothing gets done. We continue to go into debt with no viable plan on how to stop the increasing debt because no one is willing to make the difficult decisions that are going to be best for our country.

Yes, I know that cutting funding to social programs means that some people are going to be hurt. Likewise, raising taxes, and by this I mean on everyone since we would be going back to what they were under Clinton, is also going to hurt people. You want to hurt the middle class in order to protect those that traditionally vote Democrat.

I'm willing to hurt everyone, including my family personally as my wife is former military, currently works in the defense field and my mother works for the VA. I'm willing to hurt friends, as many of my best friends are military and middle class who will be affected by taxes being raised.

I'm saying everyone has to share in the hurt. As far as the social programs, we both know there is a lot of waste in them. Eliminate the waste and you don't hurt as many people. But yes, there are going to be people hurt, both by what you want and what I want. Without that hurt, the financial situation of our country will continue to get worse and worse.

Raising taxes alone will not help anything. Yes, it will mean more money for Washington, D.C., but please explain to me what Washington, D.C. has done lately, and by this I mean both Democrats and Republicans over the course of the last 10-12 years, have done to make you think that the additional money will be used to pay off debt?

The only way we are going to see the debt get under control, and thus prosperity return, is for us to both raise taxes and cut spending. If you want taxes to go back up to what they were under Clinton, you have to be willing to give something also, that being drastic spending cuts. If you can't agree to the spending cuts, your banter about raising taxes is just the same old political talk that has gotten us into this mess.
 
You can't hurt those who no other options.

We can fix Social Security very easily by raising the ago over the next twenty years, eliminating the cap and by means testing.

We can drastically cut defense and still be the most powerful nation on Earth by a wide margin.
 
And I said I was willing to cut defense. However, just cutting defense isn't going to solve our problems. We have to cut spending across the board. You have to start picking some of your pet projects to cut, which means someone is going to get hurt. If you aren't willing to compromise, you can't villify Republicans who aren't willing to compromise. The only solutions you have offered so far as those that Democrats have always campaigned for. Again, everyone has to hurt. You only want the ones that Republicans hold most dear to hurt.

And this includes the means testing for Social Security. You are saying people should be required to pay into Social Security, yet if they are smart with their money and save for retirement, they shouldn't receive any of the benefits from paying into that system. Most of these people are going to be Republicans so again you are just wanting to protect the people who generally vote Democrat while "punishing" those that vote Republican.

Why can't you understand that politics as usual isn't going to solve our problems? Your argument here is politics as usual. I could just as easily be on here doing the same thing, arguing against raising taxes, arguing we need the defense spending. But instead of saying what the party I affiliate myself has as its talking points, I'm willing to say what is best for our country. You continue to spit out the talking points.

Talking points and the inability to put country before party interests is what has gotten us into this mess and until everyone is willing to put country first, there will never be any movement towards what is best for the country.
 
Your concept of who is a Republican and who is a Democrat is disproven by the fact that most of the solidly blue states pay much more into the federal government via taxes than their states receive from federal government.
 
You are trying to avoid the fact that you are giving party talking points by changing the discussion. If you are going to do that, we can't have a logical discussion so I am through.

Stick to the topic at hand, which is if you want Republicans to give up something, Democrats have to give up something. I am willing to give, you have not shown that you are.

I want what is best for the country, and if that means going against my party line, so be it. But that doesn't mean going for everything Democrats want as both parties have been and are currently in the wrong.
 
Cutting defense spending and revising Social Security would fix the budget problem. Across the board cuts are not needed.
 
Dems do not want to raise the age for Social Security. Giving that up is a big move.

The reality also is Obama doesn't have to do anything when it comes to the W tax cuts. He can simply let them expire for everyone.

To you a "logical discussion" is your way only. I have yet to say anythingt negative or incendiary to you yet you use "who a Republican is" (which of course is totally wrong -because if that's all Republicans were, there wouldn't be more than a few in Congress). You say I use talking points. I have no idea where to find them and would never use them anyway.

If you want to have a "logical discussion" stop making accusations.
 
A logical discussion is give and take. A logical discussion is compromise. I have offered both here. I agreed with you that raising taxes is needed so you can hardly accuse me of only wanting the discussion to be my way only. I am willing to compromise. I don't even have a problem with the President letting the tax cuts expire. As has been pointed out, they were supposed to be temporary. I'm willing to put everything on the table for the future well-being of our country. But as I have said numerous times, both sides have to be willing to do this or it doesn't work. So answer this one simple question, are you willing to do the same?

You have only offered taking away that which is dear to Republicans and avoiding compromise. Oh, and now throwing out the accusation card.
 
Last edited:
A logical discussion doesn't have your perjorative attacks.

Upping the age for soical security is an equal trade for letting W's tax cuts die.

Republicans have been totally opposed to upgrading Medicare and Medicaid computer systems which would save lots of money very quickly.

There's also a hiuge difference between 2-3% of your income and maknig homeless and kids hungry. it's hardly a fair trade. Yet you think it should be.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Cutting defense spending and revising Social Security would fix the budget problem. Across the board cuts are not needed.
Click to expand...

Given White House budget numbers, we could cut defense spending to zero and we would still run a budget deficit of $1.1 trillion. That's according to the White House. The CBO says it's about $511B worse than that.

Considering we obviously can't cut defense spending to zero, if Social Security is the only other place we cut, that's an awfully big number to be made up from on one line item of the budget. Even if defense spending were to be cut in half, meaning a cut of approximately $450B, Social Security spending ($739B) would have to be cut by over 90% to make up the budget deficit.

According to the White House's own numbers, you could cut defense spending and Social Security spending BOTH by 50% and we would still have a deficit. Since neither is going to be cut 50%, I'd say we have to look elsewhere as well.
 
GaDeac can I buy you a beer sometime? Your thoughts are unbelievably refreshing. Start a political party, I'll be your first member.
 
I can't believe that everybody in the whole damn world isn't behind adjusting the age of Social Security. Its a ponzi scheme that I (I'm 24) will be paying into the rest of my life but will probably never see a dime of.

Its remarkable how the Greatest Generation gave birth to the Worst Generation. A bunch of spoiled man-children who would rather send the bill to their grandchildren than deal with real problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top