GOP pulls a fast one: unveil 10-year plan with $4.6 trillion in cuts. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;39941357]Because, as shown by the first graph I posted, defense spending is almost irrelevant as far as our future financial prospects are concerned. At most, cutting defense spending is a band aid fix that just kicks the can down the road. Also, raising taxes on the rich does not necessarily lead to increased government revenues. As an extreme example look at the tax rates and revenues in 1916 and 1924. In 1916 the top rates were 73% and in 1924 they were dropped to 24%, but government revenues actually rose. The percentage of all taxes paid by the rich also rose. Simply put, the phrase "raise tax rates" is not synonymous with "raise tax revenue." The hard part is finding where revenue peaks and where growth peaks. I would argue that we should shoot for growth, since economic growth contributes more to higher revenues than tax raises anyway. [IMG]http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/laffer-curve.jpg?w=300&h=263[/IMG][/QUOTE] I think you'll find I said nothing about 'raising tax rates', I said that the GOP's position was to lower tax rates. [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;39941357]Because, as shown by the first graph I posted, defense spending is almost irrelevant as far as our future financial prospects are concerned. At most, cutting defense spending is a band aid fix that just kicks the can down the road.[/QUOTE] That graph doesn't point to it being irrelevant, simply that the percentage of our GDP it takes up is smaller now than at various points in the past. In terms of amount at this very moment, it's about on par with healthcare or pension spending: [img]http://puu.sh/2j47t[/img]

[QUOTE=Megafan;39941250]No one honestly believes that the only two choices are A and B, but rather than the only two likely proposals to pass are A or B. And judging by what you've just said, I'm not sure how you lean left. A social safety net (whether community-organized or state-run) is a pretty big tenet of nearly all leftist ideology. [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] Care you explain why you cut out prioritizing military spending (even if under the 'national defense' banner) and lowering tax rates? If anyone was seriously concerned about the deficit, why would you even consider lowering the tax rates?[/QUOTE] I tend to agree with democrats in most ways, I just think that the government itself should be reorganized in some ways that aren't necessarily represented by any traditional view today. Overall I'm fine with a larger government in areas where capitalism fails (I'm glad we're finally getting some national healthcare, now I'd like to see federally run pharma too), but social welfare is not one of those areas. I'd also love to have MUCH higher taxes on the rich, etc. The fact that you and Lazor had trouble believing I was generally a democrat highlights my point here, that [b]a partisan government creates an environment for lots of easy debate, at the cost of slow to no progress, and on increasingly urgent matters as the parties try their best to grow further and further apart from each other, along with reality; that is, somewhere between the two.[/b] [editline]a[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;39941188]The big problems are Medicare and medicaid. Firstly, we know that military spending has actually decreased as a percentage of GDP in the last 60 years, as shown by the graph below. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/US_defense_spending_by_GDP_percentage_1910_to_2007.png[/IMG] The thing causing our financial problems is solely coming from our social institutions. Medicare is projected to outgrow it's funding exponentially in the coming years, for example: [IMG]http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/charts/2012/entitlements-historical-tax-levels-680.jpg[/IMG] This is the reason people like Paul Ryan focus on Medicare when they talk about reforming institutions.[/QUOTE] Tiger/Lazor, I'd love to hear why this is dumb.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39941481]I think you'll find I said nothing about 'raising tax rates', I said that the GOP's position was to lower tax rates.[/QUOTE] I assumed you were supporting the democratic position, which is to increase taxes. I have no idea if lowering taxes would lead to increased economic growth which would in turn cause higher tax revenues, but it isn't out of the question and to dismiss it out of hand isn't a very responsible reaction. [QUOTE]That graph doesn't point to it being irrelevant, simply that the percentage of our GDP it takes up is smaller now than at various points in the past. In terms of amount at this very moment, it's about on par with healthcare or pension spending: [IMG]http://puu.sh/2j47t[/IMG][/QUOTE] I mistakenly referred to the first graph when I meant to refer to the second graph, my mistake. Like I said, cutting military spending is a band aid fix that doesn't solve the long term problem. Military spending doesn't automatically grow and can be cut at almost any time without terrible consequences.. it isn't the same for social programs. You can't just cut benefits one day. The changes need to be slow and stretched over a long period of time meaning that we need to start now because based on projections it will utterly dominate all spending by 2045.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39939962]You're taking it too literally. I'm mad at Congress as a whole. There are a million things that they're doing wrong and they're kind of our legislature, so it's inexcusable. Bipartisanship is a major issue in our legislature and political sphere as a whole - don't pretend it's not. See, what we call the Democrats and Republicans today are not democrats or republicans at all. They're extreme left and extreme right idiots. There's hardly anyone who falls in the middle ground in our legislature, and those who do are often drowned out by the left and right extremists. [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] P.S. I voted for Obama so don't you go thinking I'm some right-wing nutjob who hates dems :)[/QUOTE] There is no extreme left in Congress or in American politics, unless you consider the "Middle" in America to be anything else from "Conservative".

[QUOTE=person11;39941727]There is no extreme left in Congress or in American politics, unless you consider the "Middle" in America to be anything else from "Conservative".[/QUOTE] Semantics. I don't know why I post anything political on this forum because some neckbeard is going to freak out about one little thing and call me an idiot. If you think bipartisanship is good for this country - nay, any country - you're stupid. It doesn't matter if one side supposedly "makes sense" and the other doesn't.

I think bipartisanship is a great concept, and I encourage Democrats to appease Republicans by softening proposed bills and reforms to be less effective and efficient. You are right that both sides need to work together. I am just pointing out that there are no true leftist forces in mainstream American politics. We do not have a large Socialist, Labor, or general leftist party. In terms of beliefs and policy ideals, Democrats are something like British or French Conservatives, while the Republican Party is closer to the French National Front or the British National Party. American Politics is misaligned towards the right. This is not semantics. But yes, Congressmen should try to go for the middle when coming up with legislation to pass. I just wanted to point out that the political "middle" in America is not the "middle" found in other OECD nations. But my little clarification is getting aside from the point of this thread -that the GOP budget is as much as a mess as the one proposed before the election.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39942349]Semantics. I don't know why I post anything political on this forum because some neckbeard is going to freak out about one little thing and call me an idiot. If you think bipartisanship is good for this country - nay, any country - you're stupid. It doesn't matter if one side supposedly "makes sense" and the other doesn't.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure why you're acting like all positions are the same. If you have two sides in a debate, and one side is saying "ice makes things slightly cooler", and the other is saying "ice makes things hot", then you do have one that makes more sense than another. They're both general, and don't provide much real detail or explanation, but one is definitely better than the other. Obviously that analogy isn't 1:1 to the Republicans and Democrats, but in terms of how you think of it, it's the same.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39939962]You're taking it too literally. I'm mad at Congress as a whole. There are a million things that they're doing wrong and they're kind of our legislature, so it's inexcusable. Bipartisanship is a major issue in our legislature and political sphere as a whole - don't pretend it's not. [B]See, what we call the Democrats and Republicans today are not democrats or republicans [/B]at all. They're extreme left and extreme right idiots. There's hardly anyone who falls in the middle ground in our legislature, and those who do are often drowned out by the left and right extremists. [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] P.S. I voted for Obama so don't you go thinking I'm some right-wing nutjob who hates dems :)[/QUOTE] lmao the thought of there being extreme left democrats, I wish brother like seriously America's definition of Left Wing is too right wing for most 1st countries. Democrats are Conservative-lite

[QUOTE=Megafan;39942549]I'm not sure why you're acting like all positions are the same. If you have two sides in a debate, and one side is saying "ice makes things slightly cooler", and the other is saying "ice makes things hot", then you do have one that makes more sense than another. They're both general, and don't provide much real detail or explanation, but one is definitely better than the other. Obviously that analogy isn't 1:1 to the Republicans and Democrats, but in terms of how you think of it, it's the same.[/QUOTE] The issue I have, and the one that I'm guessing Protocol also has, is that you can't represent an entire, completely detailed and generally "better" definition of how a government should work when you only have two options, and on top of that, the majority of the public seems to either 1. accept that those two positions are the only valid ones, and/or 2. accept that taking any other position is useless as far as "getting things done" because a vote for any other party is "thrown away." I do agree, people will almost certainly agree with one more than the other, but then you're missing out on a whole lot of fidelity/precision that you could get by letting people know that there are more options that they are just as likely to support more than any other. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE[/media]

[QUOTE=mblunk;39942951]The issue I have, and the one that I'm guessing Protocol also has, is that you can't represent an entire, completely detailed and generally "better" definition of how a government should work when you only have two options, and on top of that, the majority of the public seems to either 1. accept that those two positions are the only valid ones, and/or 2. accept that taking any other position is useless as far as "getting things done" because a vote for any other party is "thrown away." I do agree, people will almost certainly agree with one more than the other, but then you're missing out on a whole lot of fidelity/precision that you could get by letting people know that there are more options that they are just as likely to support more than any other.[/QUOTE] I'm not an advocate of FPTP, as I am not a fan of the two-party system either, but I see your point on that.