Democrat's plan to get rid of the deficit and pay down the national debt

[nick1985]

First let me start off by saying the Republican's suck pretty hard at this as well, but they did put out a plan that cuts 4 trillion over 10 years, although that isn't even close to enough.

But, all I see is Democrats bitching and moaning over the cuts. So I ask this:

Show me the Democrat plan to get rid of our massive yearly deficits to start paying down the debt. Is there one? Or are they content on allowing a financial crisis with an increasingly devalued dollar and more inflation?

 

[Carmen813]

Any truly balanced budget will require a combination of cuts to all programs, including the military, and some tax increases (either through reduction in loopholes or increases in rates, possibly both). It will also require reforming Medicaid and Medicare, but the problem with those programs is primarily how providers are paid. Reimbursement rates for providers need to be increased, but the fee for service model needs to go. For social security, we need to look at removing the article income cap and adjusting the retirement age.

Anything else is, to quote a certain speaker "smoke and mirrors."

 

[nick1985]

Yeah, but where is the Democrat's plan? I hear them talk about being fiscally responsible, I hear Obama promising to cut the deficit in half(which is still shitty) by the end of his first term...but whenever someone proposes a cut they all kick and scream how seniors will die.

I'm dying to know their plan to fix our impending crisis.

 

[Tom]

I listened to parts of both press conferences on c-span. May have missed some things.

I think the amount of reduction in the deficit proposed by Paul Ryan is appropriate. I thought he seemed sincere, not unreasonable.

I thought the Democratic response was weak, mostly attacked Ryan's plan, I didn't hear much of a counter-proposal. I hope they do better.

Particulars-
1.the Democrats said that much of the $4 trillion comes from the cost savings in Medicare that is part of Obamacare, or something alog those lines. Don't know if that's correct.

2. I doubt that the Ryan proposal on Medicaid is workable.

3. The weakest part of Ryan's proposal is no revenue increases. That's the politically populat thing to do, but it isn't realistic.

4. My position is there ought to be a return to 1999 tax levels for the most part, couple with some of Ryan's cuts, and cuts in some corporate subsidies, like sugar, oil. And reductions in government salaries comensurate with private sector jobs.

5. We need to cut defense spending by wrapping up wars, closing some bases, and not buying overpriced things like Stealth fighters.

6. We should increase spending in research, education, the arts, military readiness.

 

[Mursilis]

Neither side is serious, because the public isn't serious. Sure, people talk about the deficit, but no one wants to feel any pain (and most of the public is pretty clueless about where the money's really going anyway), so the real problem won't be getting addressed any time soon.

 

[Atreus21]

Neither side is serious, because the public isn't serious. Sure, people talk about the deficit, but no one wants to feel any pain (and most of the public is pretty clueless about where the money's really going anyway), so the real problem won't be getting addressed any time soon.

Speaking for myself, I don't think I'd mind some pain if I was presented a concrete reason for its existence.

 

[nick1985]

Neither side is serious, because the public isn't serious. Sure, people talk about the deficit, but no one wants to feel any pain (and most of the public is pretty clueless about where the money's really going anyway), so the real problem won't be getting addressed any time soon.

I suspect you are correct, unfortunately.

 

[thraashman]

The three biggest expenditures for the government if I remember are Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Military. As much as I and pretty much anyone else in the country would hate to cut those things, they're going to have to be. In addition you cannot cut taxes. Despite what Republicans seem to believe, cutting taxes to the rich does NOT and HAS NOT EVER increased revenue enough to make up for the loss.

The main thing I want cut is subsidies for corn biofuel. Alternative energy is a worthwhile thing, but corn as a biofuel doesn't end up working out. Also it may be destroying tequila production, and who wants that?

 

[Mursilis]

Speaking for myself, I don't think I'd mind some pain if I was presented a concrete reason for its existence.

I'm a federal employee, and my salaray is frozen for this year and the next. That's pain, and I'm not happy about it, but I can understand that it's necessary, so I accept it. HOWEVER, I'd feel a lot better about it if the salary freeze was part of a larger package of spending cuts/tax increases (yes, it will take both) affecting all Americans, instead of what it is - one little drop in the bucket which isn't going to save much and was mostly done for political theater. THAT part irritates me.

 

[Jaskalas]

First let me start off by saying the Republican's suck pretty hard at this as well, but they did put out a plan that cuts 4 trillion over 10 years, although that isn't even close to enough.

We're currently running 1.5 trillion per year. 15 trillion debt over 10 years. Cutting 4 from that, we'd only add 11 trillion to our debt in that time period. Let's imagine the economy recovers, and the debt is not 1.5 trillion each year. Then Reps would only add, say, 6 billion to the national debt.

The Republican plan, anyway you cut it, is far worse than GWB did during his presidency. They, with the best plan, intend to add more to the debt than he ever did.

But, all I see is Democrats bitching and moaning over the cuts. So I ask this:

Show me the Democrat plan to get rid of our massive yearly deficits to start paying down the debt. Is there one? Or are they content on allowing a financial crisis with an increasingly devalued dollar and more inflation?

Tax, Tax, Tax until we have a surplus.
It grows on money trees, right?

 

[Tom]

The three biggest expenditures for the government if I remember are Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Military. As much as I and pretty much anyone else in the country would hate to cut those things, they're going to have to be. In addition you cannot cut taxes. Despite what Republicans seem to believe, cutting taxes to the rich does NOT and HAS NOT EVER increased revenue enough to make up for the loss.

The main thing I want cut is subsidies for corn biofuel. Alternative energy is a worthwhile thing, but corn as a biofuel doesn't end up working out. Also it may be destroying tequila production, and who wants that?

Just one minor correction-Social Security is funded by it's seperate payroll tax, it doesn't take a nickle from general revenues. It has a huge surplus, not a deficit.

 

[nick1985]

Just one minor correction-Social Security is funded by it's seperate payroll tax, it doesn't take a nickle from general revenues. It has a huge surplus, not a deficit.

http://usdebtclock.org/

Bull

 

[QuantumPion]

Just one minor correction-Social Security is funded by it's seperate payroll tax, it doesn't take a nickle from general revenues. It has a huge surplus, not a deficit.

2010 was the breakeven year for social security. All the surplus that it brought in in previous years was put into the general fund and spent. It is now in deficit.

 

[sunzt]

I have a feeling that the Dems/Obama are going to put their plan out closer to election season.

 

[nick1985]

I have a feeling that the Dems/Obama are going to put their plan out closer to election season.

I'll bet $10,000 cash that Obama's plan wont even come close to getting our spending deficit under control.

He is operating under the big-government paul krugman "goverment spending and deficits are great" ideology.

 

[Tom]

http://usdebtclock.org/

Bull

According to that, paroll taxes right now are $852 billion, SS payouts are $707 billion.

I don't see on there the SS surplus, but there is one.

If you're referring to the unfunded mandates part of the chart, 1. that's speculation. 2. Even if it turns out that way, by law SS would still be funded by the payroll tax only, benefits would be cut, it wouldn't add to the national debt.

SS is a seperate issue from the deficit, it's easily fixed and there's lots of time to fix it.

Politicians only have one reason for bringing it up, they want to use the SS trust fund to cover up their unwillingness to properly manage fiscal affaris.

 

[matt0611]

I agree, I think the republican plan is pretty shitty, doesn't have enough cuts to military and domestic spending, and needs even steeper tax reform (simplification).

But the democrats have been in power in the senate for over 4 years, where is their plan?

And no, we can not get out of this by just raising taxes, not even if we wanted to.
You can tax the rich 100% and it won't be enough. So lets see the plan.

If the senate democrats don't get serious soon they will lose the senate in 2012 IMO.

 

[PokerGuy]

The dims plan is what it's always been. Tax more, spend even more, increase government, then follow that up with another round of spending and taxing. That oughta fix the issue.

 

[Paul98]

The dims plan is what it's always been. Tax more, spend even more, increase government, then follow that up with another round of spending and taxing. That oughta fix the issue.

And right now with both not knowing how to compromise to fix the problem. They only know how to make it worse. So instead of raising taxes and cutting spending. They seem to think lowering taxes and raising spending is a great idea.

 

[dabuddha]

I'm a federal employee, and my salaray is frozen for this year and the next. That's pain, and I'm not happy about it, but I can understand that it's necessary, so I accept it. HOWEVER, I'd feel a lot better about it if the salary freeze was part of a larger package of spending cuts/tax increases (yes, it will take both) affecting all Americans, instead of what it is - one little drop in the bucket which isn't going to save much and was mostly done for political theater. THAT part irritates me.

Same here. I'm sure you were pleased as a peach to learn that congress and their minions are exempt from the pay freeze.

 

[Tom]

The dims plan is what it's always been. Tax more, spend even more, increase government, then follow that up with another round of spending and taxing. That oughta fix the issue.

The alternative, lower taxes and spend more, isn't working out so well.

btw, to reiterated my position, I favor tax increase and cutting spending, in roughly equal parts. Or even 1/3 tax increases, 2/3 cuts.

The txes I would increase are Estate tax, which I think is the most fair tax there is. And the upper tax bracket to say 40%.

 

[Genx87]

We have been hearing Democrats yap about being fiscally responsible until they took both houses in 2006. The result is they increased spending while tax rolls were dropping due to a recession. Now we are left with a path of destruction that has no end and their plan appears to be to never cut growth in govt.

 

[Carmen813]

Yeah, but where is the Democrat's plan? I hear them talk about being fiscally responsible, I hear Obama promising to cut the deficit in half(which is still shitty) by the end of his first term...but whenever someone proposes a cut they all kick and scream how seniors will die.

I'm dying to know their plan to fix our impending crisis.

Democrat ideas have been floating around for years about how to reform spending and entitlements, as I outlined a few in my post. However it hasn't been a priority for them for various reasons, primarily due to the economic meltdown. Democrats come from a fundamentally different economic theory from Republicans regarding the role of government during economic recessions.

I think it's important to note that Paul Ryan's numbers are fantasy. He predicts economic growth that averages 3-5% a year for the next 10 years. He assumes unemployment will be 4% by 2015, which is basically completely unrealistic. He assumed revenue intake will remain the same, or increase, while reducing taxes through the closure of loopholes. This may happen, but if there is anything individuals and corporations are good at, it's finding ways to avoid paying taxes. His plan for Medicare reform is in my view the single largest corporate welfare handout in our countries history. His cuts to Medicaid come from largely defunding the new health care law, not from actual Medicaid Reform. I can tell you that Medicaid and Medicare already struggle to recruit competent healthcare providers, and continued cuts to these programs means less people will accept these patients. The fee for service model needs reform. He does nothing to address Military spending, aside from the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I appreciate what he is trying to do in terms of framing a serious debate about the deficit. However, presenting numbers from the Heritage Foundation as if they are scientific fact is extremely misleading. In the end, he still predicts long term deficits with his plan. That is because we are all going to need to pay more in taxes eventually. There is simply no other way without radically changing the size and scope of federal government even more than he proposes, and most Americans are not in favor of that. I for one, am not.

 

[Tom]

2010 was the breakeven year for social security. All the surplus that it brought in in previous years was put into the general fund and spent. It is now in deficit.

No it wasn't and no it isn't.

 

[Jaskalas]

And right now with both not knowing how to compromise to fix the problem. They only know how to make it worse. So instead of raising taxes and cutting spending. They seem to think lowering taxes and raising spending is a great idea.

Dems want to compromise between $40 billion in cuts, and nothing. They accept NO solution to the debt.

$4,000,000,000,000 over 10 years is not even enough of a cut to make a difference. You'd still reach a $20 trillion debt by the end of that period. The Republican 'draconican' measure is to have a $20 trillion debt instead of a $24 trillion debt. You want them to compromise somewhere between 20 and 24?