@Main Topic

A twenty percent tax cut would be the worse of the two. The simple truth of the matter is this. We don't know for sure how the cuts in Medicare will impact the market. Sure it could discourage service providers, but it could also foster competition. We see it often enough in the retail sector. Providers compensate for lower margins by selling at a higher volume. As perverse as it may seem there is no reason the same model shouldn't work for healthcare.

A twenty percent tax cut basically amounts to trickle down economics, and that is a model that has proven over time to be a faulty premise. It hasn't worked yet, and there is no reason to think it will work in the future. You see the idea is that the wealthy who benefit the most from such a tax cut will spend that money back into the rest of the economy, but it never happens. In large part due to the fact that the wealthy didn't get wealthy by being stupid. There is no incentive to take risks, or splurge when the smart move is to just sit on that cash. Put it into a foreign bank, buy stocks, or buy bonds. The net result is the same.

That money never makes it down to the guy on the bottom. It gets siphoned out of the active economy, and the economy as a whole suffers for the loss. Money in a Swiss bank account doesn't actually do anything. Well that probably isn't exactly true. It could be used to buy government debt that is incurred, because a government has undermined its revenue streams.

Bottom line if those taxes are used to repair roads. Then that money is getting back into the market place in what amounts to a very effective way. It is paying people to do a job that all of society needs done anyway. Everyone needs good roads. So yes those taxes are probably better spent by the government then the rich. Trickle down is wishful thinking. The wealthy as a rule hoard rather then use that money to create. It kind of sucks really anyone can buy stocks, or collect interest on bank accounts. It takes large investments to create something totally new.

Ironically your better off having higher capitol gains taxes, and tax credits for creating or expanding businesses. If you want to make trickle down work it has to be a velvet glove and iron fist approach. If the wealthy want to keep more money. Then you really need to see to it that they are spending it in a productive non selfish way. That said I wouldn't trust either party to be responsible with that job. Special interests will have holes you can drive a truck through in that tax policy in no time.

cutting medicare by 716 billion, but whts worse then both is electing Romney/Ryan to surve as our Pres/VicePre.

Vote Obama on 11/6/12

But Republicans said that we borrow too much from China...

if u cant decide, flip a coin.

Politics on the internet seem to always end the same. Almost no one is a qualified politician here, but we act like we are. We give sources, but only sources from one side. I'm starting to wonder the usefulness of debating politics here.

The American Government does borrow too much from China.

I'm less worried about borrowing from China then I am borrowing from ourselves.

Intergovernmental debt is a bigger deal and generally ignored. (Hence why Clinton was able to "balance" the deficit, yet still raise the hell out of the deficit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its_still_an_empty_lockbox/2011/03/17/ABPpoym_story.html?nav=emailpage

is a good article on it.

Essentially, the US will likely get it's act together on what it owes other people... but likely screw over those who invest in social security, medicare etc.   It's own people.

Hence why private social security is actually a GOOD idea. 

Because I know if i put my money somwhere privately, that the US government can't steal it to spend it on defense or other welfare programs or whatever...

and in this case it really is stealing since they are spending money that is supposed to be used for social security on other things, replacing them with IOUs.

That's your preference. After seeing what happened in 08, I don't think most Americans would take a chance on something as large as Social Security in the private sector.

You do realize the other option is... "government keeps spending it to fund other stuff so it's bankrupt anyway." 

All that money is already lost all we have from government is a promise that they will give us those benefits anyway... unless they change their mind, which both parties already argue they have to cut back on at least some.

If you don't want to privatise Social security you may as well be honest about it and completely get rid of the social security tax while keeping the legislated benefits.

Raising taxes eslewhere to cover the cost of the benefits paid out, because there is no money being put into a social security fund for us when we retire... no social security cash vault sitting somewhere.

There is a reason why this used to be a Democrat issue... that issue being that people like us are paying in with a "surplus",  that "surplus" is being used to pay for other shit like military spending and when it turns to a deficit, they'll start cutting back benefits...

even though there has been plenty of "surplus" spent elsewhere. 

Or alternatively...it will cut down on waste, fraud and abuse. Like it's been designed to.

Edit: Since the post was already quoted, might as well switch it back to the vaguer response.