Who will pay America's Debt?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, May 11, 2011.

?

Who should pay for the national debt?

Poll closed Nov 27, 2011.
  1. The poor

    3 vote(s)
    18.8%
  2. The middle class

    4 vote(s)
    25.0%
  3. The wealthy

    8 vote(s)
    50.0%
  4. Don't know

    1 vote(s)
    6.3%
  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    There is a lot of discussion these days about US debt. The money has been spent and now it must be paid. We as a nation have added the expenses of fighting two wars for 10 years on the national credit card. We have added a huge expansion in entitlement spending to the national credit card in order to keep Americans from crossing boarders to get cheaper healthcare. And we have added a huge wealth transfer from the middle class to the weatlhiest Americans to the national credit card. Now it must be paid.

    The Republican solution is to pass the cost on to the middle and lower income folks. The Democrat solution is two fold, pass the costs on to the wealthy and to get more bang for the dollar (healthcare reform).

    So who should pay America's bills? Should it be the poor, the middle class or the wealthy?
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    Last edited: May 11, 2011
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    We need to be able to select more than one option in the poll.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I intentionally limited it to those choices in order to distill the conversation down to the basics.
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The basics are that everyone pays taxes.
     
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Wither our present tax system which forces the middle class to pay the highest taxes per income, I'll say the "middle class". I would love ANY kind of simplified tax scheme just as long as its taxes the rich more than the middle class or poor. Flat tax for example with tax credit for the poor.
     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Yes everyone pays taxes. But the Republican and Democrat approaches to Americans fiscal issues are very different.

    Republican approach:

    - shift costs to middle and lower income groups

    Democrats have a two fold approach:

    - improve government efficiencies (e.g. healthcare reform)
    - shift costs to the wealthy
     
  11. diane Banned Banned

    Messages:
    163
    We should reduce our debt and cut all unnecessary spending. Your grandchildren will end up paying.
     
  12. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Its not possible to pay back that debt. Even the US government knows it will never pay off that debt but as for the question if anyone is going to pay for it the cost will fall on all americans. I don't see how that could be avoided and even still it would take generations to pay it. You'll see the results in the quality of lifestyle or lack thereof and social programs you will not be able to afford.


    President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation’s economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

    In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president’s budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

    “An additional $1.2 trillion in debt dumped on [GDP] to our children makes a huge difference,” said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “That represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt they are already carrying.”

    The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it’s headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO’s deficit estimates.

    That figure would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008. By comparison, America’s debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 109 percent at the end of World War II, while the ratio for economically troubled Greece hit 115 percent last year.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/

    I know we've been through this before but I don't think you realize just how bad the debt situation is and it won't be solved by cutting a few nickels and dimes. Healthcare reform is not going to decrease the debt, the diluted health care reform doesn't cap costs so it cannot be a means to lower the deficit.
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Not if they can't participate in a 21st century economy because their schools suck. A certain amount of social spending is necessary to generate revenue. We need to cut corporate tax loopholes, especially those that reward sending jobs overseas.
     
  14. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Too late for that. Clinton's NAFTA is signed and sealed and I don't hear anyone talking about revoking it. Social spending can generate revenue but only if you have it to spend. If other nations stop absorbing our debts and the dollar loses too much value then those social services would not be saved even if you tax its citizens. Capping corporate tax loopholes is what Obama should have done from the very beginning but then again you will risk pull-outs by corporations who are just as happy to take their money elsewhere. Its a catch-22 situation.
     
  15. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Let them go, why are they here in the first place if they don't want to pay their fair share?
     
  16. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Who would you tax if you let them go? I think the question should not be how we can get out of the financial woes but how we're going to prepare for its reality. There is no way to climb out of this financial hole.
     
  17. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Nonsense, the way out is a forward leap, we need to spend more and reinvest in this country so that we generate the revenue that will pay down the debt. I don't think it's a huge problem, it's just that the cons are making it one because they have an interest in cutting social spending. When the people are poor, desperate, and miserable, they can be taken advantage of.

    I doubt the American CEOs of these corporations want to live in China or the Cayman Islands. The moment they try to bring their wealth back, we tax it.
     
  18. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Generate the money how? Through taxes? Look at the Washington Post article in the above post. Do you believe you will have in todays financial market the $170,000 for your household which would be your share of the debt? Would anyone? The middle-class is dwindling.

    CEO's would live comfortably anywhere. Wealth does after all have its privileges and the wealthy playgrounds of the world are the same everywhere. Why do you think the Royals love to go to Africa on their lavish vacations? You don't think they are actually put-off by the poverty do you? The quality of life is BETTER the cheaper the country. Its cheaper for a CEO or corporation to offer a little which is a lot in many developing nations than pay exorbitant taxes in the US. Europe had the same problem and all you got was the wealthy moving to neighboring countries where they were getting a better deal. You see it in Asia right now.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    ...as we have paid for our parents debts.
     
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    That is silly. It certianly is possible. The question is what will the nation be willing to do to pay off its debts? The good news is it does not have to pay off its debts but to bring them more in line with income. And that is the real issue here that is getting ignored.
    Your Obama budget information is a little dated. The Obama budget you cited was for the current year. You are not referencing the Obama plan he released weeks ago after the Republicans released their budget plans.

    And the numbers you cited from the Heritiage Foundation are more than a bit skewed and misleading. Why is it I don't find that suprising? Let's correct the record. They need to be taken into context. What would they be under the Republican solution versus the Obama solution?

    The unpleasant fact for you is that without healthcare reform the 10 year projected deficits would have an additional trillion dollars tacked onto it, according to the non partisan Congressional Budget Office.
     
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    CEO's and the wealthy can live where they will, but they will still have to pay income tax if the wealth they depend upon was earned in The United States. If they want to live in Zimbabwe, great. They can be rich in Zimbabwe. But can they earn the income in Zimbabwe that they earn in the United States? No. They are certianly not going to be able to purchase a new modern yacht on their Zimbabwe earnings.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And other industrial nations would tax their income more than what it is taxed in The United States.

    So that old Republican fear tactic holds no water when reviewed in the light of day.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2011
  22. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Yes, taxes. The middle class doesn't have to be shrinking, this isn't inevitable, but the result of decades of DC corruption.

    If CEOs can live anywhere, more power to them, but there is a reason they don't.
     
  23. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    To the first question: And this would happen how? You are still operating by the notion that the US can pay their way out of debt by increasing their debt load. The Obama plan is not going to reduce the debt in any significant way in the long run which means you will still have to make cuts everywhere while still spending money you don't have. Americans are not going to be making more money but less, inflation meanwhile is putting a dent into many people's pockets as gas and food prices rise.

    Why is healthcare reform an unpleasant fact for me? I have the benefit of not having to use healthcare in the US, its called the NHS which has its problems believe me but at least its there.

    Like most developed countries, Britain ranks above the U.S. in most health measurements. Its citizens have a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality, and the country has more acute-care hospital beds per capita and fewer deaths related to surgical or medical mishaps. Britain achieves these results while spending proportionally less on health care than the U.S. — about $2,500 per person in Britain, compared with $6,000 in the U.S. For these reasons, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked Britain 18th in a global league table of health-care systems (the U.S. was ranked 37th). However, there are measures by which the U.S. outperforms Britain: for instance, the U.S. has lower cancer mortality rates.

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1916570,00.html#ixzz1M4v9Ji2P

    Obama's health care cannot achieve fiscal responsibility when it costs so much to implement without lowering the cost of health care which someone has to pay. Its better than nothing but it was compromised from its original which means it still works in favor of the large insurance companies and pharmaceuticals who are the ones that control the costs. What's more you will be forced to choose from one of those companies or be fined, the constitutionality of that is a little dubious but even still without that as a consideration the plan hasn't addressed rising health care costs. What part of that bill caps costs?

    You ask what 'republican' solution would one prefer and I'm saying that both fall short of solutions if both parties have to pander to health care lobbyists which compromises any program offered in good faith.
     

Share This Page