First, this is an honest request for better understanding, and I’d prefer if the questions I put forth are answered by true conservatives, and that response to positions exposed by kept polite. If significant side discussion is generated I’d appreciate it if it got taken to a offshoot thread. Clearly I can’t control any of that, but I can at least ask nicely
If you feel there is myside bias in any of these questions (full disclosure I’m a liberal) point it out and we can work on better questions.
All questions should be answered by how you feel on the issue, and by how the candidate you support (if there is one) feels on the issue.
How would you attempt to balance the budget, and why do you think this would work?
How would you get the country out of debt, and why do you think this would work?
How would you deal with Iran?
In changing/cutting/adapting programs like social security, disability, medicaid, how would you address the claims from people using those systems that they already paid for them in payroll taxes specifically for those programs, and taking them away at this point is theft?
Is income inequality an problem? If not, why? If yes, how would you deal with the issue and why do you think it would work?
How should healthcare work, especially when children are involved?
I’m not a conservative but I think I know their positions.
The budget should be balanced and the debt should be reduced by cutting unnecessary government spending.
A strong military and the willingness to use it will prevent Iran and other countries from trying anything against American interests.
Eliminate these programs through phases so the people who have already paid in will get what they deserve while new people are diverted away from entering the system.
Not a problem. It’s a sign of the free market at work.
Healthcare, like everything else, is best handled by the free market. The free market will deliver better service at less cost than any government program.
Yes, but those are the talking points. The 10,000 foot view. I want to understand how these programs would actually work, how they would translate into action. That is why I asked for conservatives to answer. That’s also why I included “why do you think it would work” with most of the questions.
@Chronos: No - because a balanced budget would not reduce the debt, just keep it the same. Realistically a debt as large as we have can not be dealt with via the budget directly - it has to be dealt with by increasing GDP.
The truth is that nobody knows what the answers are. We can’t see the future. What we do is speculate on what we think will happen.
So one politician might say that if we permanently station American troops in the Middle East and show Iran we’re ready to fight, that will keep Iran from doing anything dangerous. Another politician might say that if we withdraw American troops from the Middle East and don’t try to intimidate Iran, that will keep Iran from doing anything dangerous. Both of them are saying what they believe is true but which of them is right? The honest answer is we don’t know. We just pick the answer we think is right and hope it works.
Well, people I would assume know the basics of their own ideology. For example, as a liberal on the subject above my stance would be: Engage via the U.N., let Israel take care of itself (it’s more than strong enough), and if we do have to engage in war, do it as much like Libya as possible, and as little like Iraq as possible. My candidate (I hesitate to call him mine since he has no progressives running against him) would probably agree with my approach, since he has at least once (Libya) used this method successfully.
This is not intended to be a gotch-ya kind of thing. I want to learn, because I believe there are valid things to learn and we need to work together. I can’t even begin to do that unless I can cut through the talking points and get to some meat.
No, they’re entirely different and distinct policies.
The budget could be balanced by enormous spending cuts. This could be kept up forever without reducing the debt. In fact, the debt would continually increase because of interest charges.
In reality, those spending cuts would do terrific damage to the economy so that even maintaining a balance would require more cuts every year.
The only realistic way to reduce debt is to have the entire U.S. economy enter a growth spurt again as it did in the 1990s. Although people talk about the government’s role in this, the economy as a whole is much larger than the government and operates mostly independently. Asking what a party would do to get the country out of debt is asking a doomed question.
Cut spending across the board include defence and simplify the tax system by lowering overall rates and eliminating loopholes. This will work once the economy recovers and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq wind down.
See above.
Retain strong relationships with countries in the region and retain a firm but not aggressive hand on Iran.
I disagree. The payroll taxes essentially fund those entitlement programs for their elders rather than themselves.
It is a concern yes but any redistribution plan is going to cause more problems than solve them.
By instituting tort reform, allowing interstate insurance purchases, and other free market reforms along with encouraging states to institute their own health care plans.
I have to disagree in part. I think we cannot be the worlds labor source (we are too small) and thus we have to push for invention and innovation in the areas where we still have an advantage, and lately that is coming down to space.
There are many projects the government could fund involving space that would have very significant impact on growth in related huge industries, like clean energy, biotech, and computers. That is how I’d increase GDP and pay down the debt. Balancing the budget is just how you keep the boat afloat until then.
Military spending is the third rail of politics, Republicans will never agree to any cuts in defense (spelled the unpretentious way) and will accuse anyone who tries of treason. If these across the board cuts were so easy, they would have been proposed in detail. By “in detail”, I do not mean “cut waste and fraud”.
So one generation gets to be left holding the bag? You paid in but you won’t get out the same benefits that you provided to others- sucks to be you!
There already is a redistribution plan- wealth is being redistributed upward.
Torts only count for a few percent of health care costs and limiting torts would have virtually no effect on health care costs other than denying victims of poor practitioners the right to be made whole for their losses. Allowing interstate competition only means that insurers will all relocate to the states with the most consumer-unfriendly regulations.
I’m always baffled when the states’ rights crowd proclaims that the solution to out-of-control health care costs is to remove the states’ power to regulate health coverage within their borders.
What kind of “tax loopholes” would conservatives eliminate, while lowering rates across the board? I usually only see named “loopholes” that disproportionally aid the middle class (mortgage interest deduction, child credit) or the poor (charitable giving deductions). Talk about wealth redistribution!
There is no state’s rights crowd. There is only people who use the term for their convenience. They only support state’s rights when it suits them, and are mum when it does not.
Well I never said my ideas would be considered orthodox by the GOP. They were asking for people’s suggestions.
!
Since the American population is steadily becoming older and their is a lower ratio of workers to retirees something will happen sooner or later.
As I’ve said if we lower overall rates and simplify and flatten it we can also get rid of all loopholes that subsidize favoured parts of the wealthy,
I meant the ideas originated by the GOP. And if the people did not consumer-unfriendly insurances they won’t purchase them. I also support some Dem ideas such as getting rid of preexisting conditions blocking someone getting health care.
You’ll have to 'splain this one to me then. I was under the impression that the vast majority of the government’s debt is acquired through bond issues. The bonds have a fixed term of payments. Those payments are in the budget. So, if we balanced the budget wouldn’t we pay off the debt whenever the longest-term bonds mature?
Every Republican tax reform plan I’ve ever seen has as its foundation that it be “revenue neutral”, in other words useless in reducing the deficit. Why must the rates be lowered? And do you think your pretentious use of British spelling makes your remarks more intellectual?
You’re under the misapprehension that consumer-friendly policies would exist because of the magic effect of crossing a state border.
We have a national debt of around $15 trillion. Servicing the debt now requires about $500 billion a year, or about 3%.
Say that the budget is balanced. That cuts 1.3 trillion from intake, leaving 2.3 trillion to do everything. Defense, executive branch departments, social security, medicare, judiciary, everything, plus interest payments. (Or you could raise taxes by 1.3 trillion. Good luck.) Could we afford to pay out $500 billion for interest plus however much debt is at its due date? Treasury bonds are mostly issued for 30 years these days. If the debt is evenly divided by year of issue then $500 billion must be retired each year plus the other $500 billion for interest. That’s a trillion dollars that must be found out of that 2.3 trillion in tax revenue. Realistically, that’s why we keep borrowing more just to service the debt. The alternative is vastly higher taxes or vast spending cuts. And it’s even worse than this because money doesn’t flow into the treasury evenly. There’s a big collection pre-April 15 with much smaller amounts the rest of the year. If the cash flow isn’t right - and it never is - more short-term borrowing occurs.
This is highly simplified, true, but it should show that balancing the budget leaves no extra money to service the debt without impossible political sacrifices. That means more borrowing.
Running a surplus in income would help run down the debt over a period of time. Mere balancing, though, won’t quite do it.
It’s late and I should have been in bed an hour ago. I think the explanation makes sense. You’ll have to wait till tomorrow to yell at me if it doesn’t.
