Question for the left on the debt ceiling

SR_

SR_

Junior Member
I really only want to hear intelligent responses from those members that align themselves as Democrats, liberals, leftys....

Well actually its 3 questions:

1. If the GOP compromised and raised taxes would you support a cut, cap and balance approach? Meaning, more revenue would be coming in... but ALL of that revenue would be for deficit elimination and debt reduction.

2. If the GOP compromized and raised taxes would you support increasing spending... since more revenue would be available to spend...

3. If the GOP compromized and raised taxes would you support politicians in Washington, the Democratic Party, the left as a political entity, would you support THEM in efforts to establish some sort of cut, cap and balance approach, or would you think they were betraying their ideals and philosophy if they did not attempt to spend any additional revenues that would be created by tax increases?

SR
 
that is funny shit, let me get this straight. Are you trying to sell the snake oil that republicans actually want to spend less in total?
 
The Dude said:
that is funny shit, let me get this straight. Are you trying to sell the snake oil that republicans actually want to spend less in total?
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with Republicans other than the insertion of their role in compromising on tax increases. Im not suggesting that the GOP would in any way attempt to spend less. Im just asking the left side what THEIR answers to the question would be. Im not attempting to illicit any debate on which party spends less or more.

Clearly historically both are not that much different. However. Right now this moment in history has an obvious undertone to a desire, especially on the part of the conservatives... to cut spending, cut benefits, try and address some fiscal problems we have. Im not saying they are alone in this effort.. im just saying it would be hard to argue that Democrats in Congress or this Administration are fervently pursuing spending cuts, and limitations on future spending, or deficit reduction.. etc..

So, there really isnt a debate to be had on whether either party has spent less than the other in the past, or which one might be more trustworthy in the future, or which side of the line the parties are existing within as of today. Just looking for answers from the left to the questions i posed.
 
The Dude said:
Ok phony debate based on the phoney assumption that repukes are serious got it.
Click to expand...
A debate requires someone to take and establish a position. SR has not done that, and has only asked a hypothetical question with a given set of circumstances, which should result in honest yet hypothetical answers.
 
SR_ said:
I really only want to hear intelligent responses from those members that align themselves as Democrats, liberals, leftys....

Well actually its 3 questions:

1. If the GOP compromised and raised taxes would you support a cut, cap and balance approach? Meaning, more revenue would be coming in... but ALL of that revenue would be for deficit elimination and debt reduction.



2. If the GOP compromized and raised taxes would you support increasing spending... since more revenue would be available to spend...

3. If the GOP compromized and raised taxes would you support politicians in Washington, the Democratic Party, the left as a political entity, would you support THEM in efforts to establish some sort of cut, cap and balance approach, or would you think they were betraying their ideals and philosophy if they did not attempt to spend any additional revenues that would be created by tax increases?

SR
Click to expand...

Define "cut, cap and balance." Because if that included passing the Balanced Budget Amendment proposals floating around, I would oppose it.

My basic position is that the debt ceiling should be increased and the debate over the role of and size of the government should be dealt with separately and not in context of a hostage negotiation.
 
The Dude said:
Ok phony debate based on the phoney assumption that repukes are serious got it.
Click to expand...

i dont see any debate to be had on whether or not Republicans in Congress (the current GOP caucus that is advancing legislation and negotiating with the Democratic Party and the Democratic controlled White House) are serious about cutting spending, its my opinion that only a fool would attempt to take a stance that we are NOT in a showdown as of today about spending cuts, deficits, debt and tax increases. Im sorry man.. i just.. theres no real debate to be had about whether or not this is occuring.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Define "cut, cap and balance." Because if that included passing the Balanced Budget Amendment proposals floating around, I would oppose it.

My basic position is that the debt ceiling should be increased and the debate over the role of and size of the government should be dealt with separately and not in context of a hostage negotiation.
Click to expand...


David St. Hubbins,

Im not really looking to specifically define cut, cap and balance. Its sort of more you support an approach that would take away the ability of this congress and future congress's to spend or obligate the nation to something higher than 18% to 20% of GDP per fiscal budget, cut existing spending levels to reflect that and balance out budgets... basically it means sacrifice, even sacrifice for those Americans that pretty much are sustained entirely on Government entitlements and welfare.... or if you support more of a redistribution of wealth.. more revenue comes in.. you want to spend it on programs or entitlements, that deficit and debt can always be addressed through revenue increases... with somewhat less of a focus on how high those increases are, what % of GDP the government takes in, or what % of GDP reflects debt obligations etc...

Basically Im interested in seeing the majority opinion of the left members of the board in what they would support doing IF the GOP said "Fine, lets increase taxes on "these" Americans"... what would be the desired outcome the day after.
 
The Dude/Topspin/Mr. Faux MBA is incapable of answering questions in a serious manner. That's because he's stoned out of his mind 24/7.
 
SR_ said:
David St. Hubbins,

Im not really looking to specifically define cut, cap and balance. Its sort of more you support an approach that would take away the ability of this congress and future congress's to spend or obligate the nation to something higher than 18% to 20% of GDP per fiscal budget, cut existing spending levels to reflect that and balance out budgets... basically it means sacrifice, even sacrifice for those Americans that pretty much are sustained entirely on Government entitlements and welfare.... or if you support more of a redistribution of wealth.. more revenue comes in.. you want to spend it on programs or entitlements, that deficit and debt can always be addressed through revenue increases... with somewhat less of a focus on how high those increases are, what % of GDP the government takes in, or what % of GDP reflects debt obligations etc...

Basically Im interested in seeing the majority opinion of the left members of the board in what they would support doing IF the GOP said "Fine, lets increase taxes on "these" Americans"... what would be the desired outcome the day after.
Click to expand...


Well then maybe you should ask a clear hypothetical with precisely defined objective terms that people of reasonable intelligence can understand. Care to take another crack at it?

I'd also add that if you would like to restrict government spending to less than 18% of GDP every year isn't really plausible. Saint Ronnie's lowest spending as a percentage of GDP was 21.2%. And when you take into account demographic changes (aging population), government spending is going to go up.

Additionally, are you talking about spending as a percentage of GDP for the previous year or as a percentage of GDP for the year in which the spending occurs. The BBA's that are floating around Congress now peg spending to the previous year's GDP.


Edit: And again, raising these issues in the context of the debt ceiling is ridiculous. These are questions concerning the fundamental role of government and should not be dealt with hastily in the context of a hostage negotiation where the full, faith and credit of the United States is put at risk together with the global economy.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Well then maybe you should ask a clear hypothetical with precisely defined objective terms that people of reasonable intelligence can understand. Care to take another crack at it?

I'd also add that if you would like to restrict government spending to less than 18% of GDP every year isn't really plausible. Saint Ronnie's lowest spending as a percentage of GDP was 21.2%. And when you take into account demographic changes (aging population), government spending is going to go up.

Additionally, are you talking about spending as a percentage of GDP for the previous year or as a percentage of GDP for the year in which the spending occurs. The BBA's that are floating around Congress now peg spending to the previous year's GDP.


Edit: And again, raising these issues in the context of the debt ceiling is ridiculous. These are questions concerning the fundamental role of government and should not be dealt with hastily in the context of a hostage negotiation where the full, faith and credit of the United States is put at risk together with the global economy.
Click to expand...

David St. Hubbins,

um... no. its pretty clear. I clearly stated I have no desire to define it... its in "round abouts".

The answers are not complicated. Here are some examples:

1. No... if the GOP agreed to increase taxes I would not support using those revenue increases to service deficit reduction. (You in now way need to know %'s, specific details, nothing.. you either support the intent and the mindset or you dont, if you prefer to support some restriction thats fine, but there is no desire to debate details between restrictions... you either support SOME type of pull back and cutting or you dont)

2. Yes... if the GOP would increase taxes.. thats more to go around and more programs for us to create. (you in no way need to explain your outlook on the current fiscal situation of the United States.. you either support govt and its ability to spend for the good or you dont)

3. No.. I would not support any Democrats that jumped on board any type of plan that would in any way cut government spending or attempt to cut any type of entitlement or welfare program, the people that need these programs are the weakest among us and if we can get more revenues coming in, then at the very least i expect Democrats in congress to maintain the status quo.. (again.. whether or not you understand any of the specifics this is an honest answer about the expectation of your party and its leaders in what actions they should take and how they should approach the day after).


So.. maybe you could simply take a crack at answering the questions... these are clear and simpe questions that people, especially those of reasonable intelligence can understand.
 
SR_ said:
David St. Hubbins,

um... no. its pretty clear. I clearly stated I have no desire to define it... its in "round abouts".

The answers are not complicated. Here are some examples:

1. No... if the GOP agreed to increase taxes I would not support using those revenue increases to service deficit reduction. (You in now way need to know %'s, specific details, nothing.. you either support the intent and the mindset or you dont, if you prefer to support some restriction thats fine, but there is no desire to debate details between restrictions... you either support SOME type of pull back and cutting or you dont)

2. Yes... if the GOP would increase taxes.. thats more to go around and more programs for us to create. (you in no way need to explain your outlook on the current fiscal situation of the United States.. you either support govt and its ability to spend for the good or you dont)

3. No.. I would not support any Democrats that jumped on board any type of plan that would in any way cut government spending or attempt to cut any type of entitlement or welfare program, the people that need these programs are the weakest among us and if we can get more revenues coming in, then at the very least i expect Democrats in congress to maintain the status quo.. (again.. whether or not you understand any of the specifics this is an honest answer about the expectation of your party and its leaders in what actions they should take and how they should approach the day after).


So.. maybe you could simply take a crack at answering the questions... these are clear and simpe questions that people, especially those of reasonable intelligence can understand.
Click to expand...


Actually, the answers are pretty complex.

(1) It depends on what you cut and where you set the cap. If you cut the DoD budget in half, for example, you're going to get a whole hell of a lot more support from me than if you cut half of the other half of discretionary spending. And where are you setting the cap? If it is realistic and allows for increasing above the cap in times of recession (not just times of war) than you're going to get much more support from people like me.

(2) It depends. What are the programs? My general view is that any proposed new spending that is long term and not simply responsive to economic conditions should have a source of funding that ensures its long-term viability, like the Affordable Care Act did.

(3) This is just an asinine question and is, again, too dependent on what you cut and at what level you set the cap.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Actually, the answers are pretty complex.

(1) It depends on what you cut and where you set the cap. If you cut the DoD budget in half, for example, you're going to get a whole hell of a lot more support from me than if you cut half of the other half of discretionary spending. And where are you setting the cap? If it is realistic and allows for increasing above the cap in times of recession (not just times of war) than you're going to get much more support from people like me.

(2) It depends. What are the programs? My general view is that any proposed new spending that is long term and not simply responsive to economic conditions should have a source of funding that ensures its long-term viability, like the Affordable Care Act did.

(3) This is just an asinine question and is, again, too dependent on what you cut and at what level you set the cap.
Click to expand...

So you seem to be a Democrat or Liberal that is in favor somewhat of addressing some deficit reduction, some fiscal restraint, agreeable to some cutting of programs in the event that the GOP got on board with increasing tax revenues.

Thats cool... details on what to cut and how much are not what im looking for right now, clearly you express some desire to restrain and be fiscally smart about stuff with a revenue increase.
 
SR_ said:
I really only want to hear intelligent responses from those members that align themselves as Democrats, liberals, leftys....

Well actually its 3 questions:

1. If the GOP compromised and raised taxes would you support a cut, cap and balance approach? Meaning, more revenue would be coming in... but ALL of that revenue would be for deficit elimination and debt reduction.

2. If the GOP compromized and raised taxes would you support increasing spending... since more revenue would be available to spend...

3. If the GOP compromized and raised taxes would you support politicians in Washington, the Democratic Party, the left as a political entity, would you support THEM in efforts to establish some sort of cut, cap and balance approach, or would you think they were betraying their ideals and philosophy if they did not attempt to spend any additional revenues that would be created by tax increases?

SR
Click to expand...

Maybe a conservative icon can answer...

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top