What is the Republican solution to get us out of debt?

Question

I know you guys want the tax cuts to remain permanent, so what is the solution to get us out of our trillions of dollars of debt while making the tax cuts to Americans permanent and spending 150 billion dollars a year on wars?

Answer 1

Simple. End the war on poverty AKA welfare.

Liberals don’t seem to understand that if you want to eradicate poverty, you have to know how wealth is created. It doesn’t come from government. It doesn’t come from sitting on your hands. It comes from getting a job. The Liberal architects of our welfare system seem never to have asked the question: Would you work if you were paid not to work?


Here’s what the Liberals say:

“We need welfare to give the poor a safety net.”

Wrong. The American welfare system was originally designed to help the deserving poor with the basic necessities of life: food and shelter. This is honorable, but the current system strays far from these ideals. Now it caters to untold numbers who use welfare as a hammock. Such a deal! Why would you work if you got paid not to work? As an unemployed teenager, why should you have to wait to have children until you can afford to care for them when the government will pay you a subsidy right now if you have a child?

It’s pretty simple: if you tax something, you get less of it; if you subsidize something, you’ll get more of it.

Despite decades of research by liberal social workers, psychologists, sociologists and other assorted do-gooder liberals – and despite $8 Trillion in social service spending since 1965 – has anyone really been able to come up with a better and more successful social program than just going out and getting a job?

Look, sometimes bad things do happen to good people. Some welfare is necessary, although it would be better handled by private charities that can better monitor the effects of their own efforts than by the government, which just sends a check.

It should be available in limited circumstances to help formerly productive, responsible members of society get back on their feet. Welfare should not, however, be permitted to replace work, family, or personal responsibility.

That’s because this safety net just doesn’t work. Thanks in large part to the perverse financial incentives created by generous welfare programs, illegitimacy, welfare rolls, and crime rates have exploded. Since the rise of government welfare, the American family has disintegrated. Since the 1960’s, the number of single-parent households and the number of illegitimate children has gone through the roof.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, National Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics, when the War on Poverty began, only 7.7 percent of American children were born out of wedlock – in 2002, that figure was 34.5 percent.

Why? Liberal social welfare programs reward illegitimacy, unemployment, and single parenthood. And when you reward such socially undesirable behavior, you get more of it. It’s that simple.





Liberals say:

“Conservatives oppose welfare because they’re mean and not compassionate towards the poor.”


Oh really? Well, let me tell you something: Conservatives are more compassionate than Liberals. Liberals love to talk the talk when it comes to compassion, but they don’t walk the walk. Liberals constantly talk about how society should spend more of someone else’s money to help out poor children in inner-city schools, but they continually refuse to try school vouchers, which would give inner-city parents the financial ability to remove their children from failing schools and place them in schools that work.

Liberals talk about how Americans should be compassionate to the criminals who create heinous crimes, but they themselves show little compassion to the victims of crime. Nor do they take any notice of the devastating effects crime has on crime-ridden neighborhoods.

Liberals claim to be compassionate towards the poor, but simultaneously overtax the people who give the poor their best chance at a middle-class lifestyle: businessmen and employers who could provide those poor people with jobs.

Conservatives are far more compassionate – and a whole lot less patronizing – than liberals. Liberals think its “compassionate” to raise taxes on hardworking, productive Americans in order to transfer other people’s money to Democratic constituents: welfare recipients and government bureaucrats.

In stark contrast, conservatives show real compassion by trying to create a world with as many economic opportunities for as many people as possible. Making it possible for poor and low-income workers to become self-reliant is far more compassionate – and far more effective – than creating opportunities to receive government handouts.

Remember: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.”





Liberals say:

“We have welfare to bring fairness to American economic life.”

I don’t know what causes it. maybe they failed to advance beyond their freshman course in Marxism. But for whatever reason, liberals endlessly natter on about how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and that’s not fair that some people can fly first class while others cant afford cars. What liberals don’t acknowledge is the many years of hard work and sacrifice that are usually needed to create a rich person.

Why is it unfair for a rich person to make lots of money? Imagine if a young woman, Noelle, gets rich after working 40 hours a week to pay for college – and studying another 40 hours each week. now imagine if this young lady went to high school with Jack, a guy who decided not to go to college or get a decent job, and who never did anything to develop marketable skills.

Ten years later, Jack is lucky to find work sweeping up at McDonald’s. Noelle has a Park Avenue penthouse. Is that unfair? Not on your life! Noelle’s own work and self-sacrafice made her wealthy.

But how would a liberal view this scenario...? Predictably.

A liberal view would immediately label Noelle a member of the “fortunate few,” and conclude that she should be punished for her high income by being made to pay high taxes for social welfare programs – which go to benefit poor old Jack. At the ballot box, liberals can count on Jack for political support, because, obviously, Jack is happy to get a piece of Noelle’s income.

Conservatives look at this same situation and understand Noelle gets paid more not because she is lucky or because the system doesn’t work, but because it does!

Her skills and personal qualities (determination, perseverance) paid off in the marketplace.

Nothing unfair about that.

Answer 2

Let me walk you through this: Raising taxes (or letting the current cuts expire--they are both the same thing) will result in the economy slowing down, possibly even going into a recession. End result: less money to the Treasury. The tax cuts that have been implemented have resulted in a robust economy, which has increased the revenue to the Treasury. Keeping the cuts as they are, even cutting them more will continue this trend. That takes care of the income side. On the spending side, the United States must reform the current entitlement system and make it self sustaining. Medicare and Social Security will bankrupt this nation in it's current form and it must be changed. The additonal income coming from a stimulated economy is not enough to cover these obligations. Additionally, the rate of the growth in discretionary spending must also be cut to a level that is below the rate of inflation, if not cut outright, to make further gains on the spending side. As far as the war is concerned, everyone knows that this is not a permanent obligation, and is an investment in our future security. Bush has already cut the deficit by half well before his goal of doing so, and if the current strategies are kept in place, this cutting will continue and the deficit will turn into a surplus. Obviously, Congress will have to help with this, and supposedly, the new crop of congresspersons are committed to being fiscal conservatives in this mold (at least that what they ran on). Hopefully they will remain true to this commitment.

Answer 3

Isn't it a bit ridiculous that Liberals never mention the $5.5 Trillion debt under Clinton in 1998, and instead point out a surplus when referring to the deficit? Face it, the national debt has been growing since 1791, and no politician will ever pay it down. Neither party has ever done anything about it. I wish this country would just stop the partisan attacks and look for real solutions.

The Liberals think the Democrats will control spending? Clinton added significantly to the national debt, yet no one said a word in 1998, and that is exactly why it will never go away. Partisan crap.

The only solution is to cut spending, and neither party has the stomach to take on the media attacks that will follow. Tax cuts increase revenues. We have to cut government. Where have the fiscal conservatives gone????

Answer 4

You will likely get about two real answers and the rest will politically motivated attacks with no substance.
Zardo's chart is interesting but for each President, the number shown is the increase in the National Debt. The makeup of the chart makes it appear as if the Democrats are decreasing the National debt while the Republicans alone are increasing it, when what it really shows is that occasionally under Democratic leadership the national debt has increased at a slower rate.
The Democrats have done a better job of slowing the increase of the national debt and, in a vacuum, that would be positive. They have done so by increasing taxes AND increasing spending, particularly on social services, etc. The debt increases in several years of Republican leadership due to lower taxes.
The point is, neither party has shown to be capable of running the country within a budget. Both parties waste and spend a ridiculous amount of money so arguments about who spends more are absurd. The real arguments come in to play when you want to discuss where they are spending their money. Both parties spend and spend but have different agendasfor spending. The federal government has become too large and invasive and is nothing like the Federal government envisioned by the framers of our Constitution. The Feds waste billions of dollars running programs that could be handled by local governments or not by government at all.
I can assure you of one thing. As long as the Dems or Repubs are in control of the White House and Congress, spending will be out of control. Under the Republ the debt is likely to skyrocket and, under the Dems, taxation will be out of sight. Neither is the answer.
The answer is to reduce the size fo the Fed govt to less than a quarter of what it is now, follow the Constitution and place responsibilities into the hands of State and Local govt where it belongs.
Vote Ron Paul for President

Answer 5

It's the same as the Democrat solution to get us out of debt...

kick the can down the road.

You DO know that the debt increased even when Clinton was getting surpluses? It increased by over 35% under Clinton, and those were allegedly "good" times.

When Bush came into office, there was a recession followed 9 months later by 9/11, which had an even larger economic impact. Add the costs of the prescription drug entitlement and the NCLB costs, plus having to increase the military and intelligence budgets cut by Clinton, and the normal geometric growth of the other "entitlement" programs, and you have large deficits and increased debt.

The concept of growing the economy to shrink the deficit and ultimately the debt is a sound one, moreso than the belief that taxing the economy into stagnation will work.

It is the rapaciousness of the government in its spending that is the problem, and the biggest portion of that is the "entitlement" programs.

But, Constitutionally, nobody is "entitled" to a portion of my paycheck to put food on their table or a roof over their head or medicine in their cabinets.

Answer 6

First of all, the National Debt isn't a major issue. In fact, no country would force the US to pay off its debt because in one way or another, we have helped them (like europe) or they're afraid that the US would cut off all trade with them (China).

Second, Republican want to limit taxes, not stop them, and want to cut government spending to the point that the government still makes makes money, while at the same time, the people make money. No country ever succeeds in developing by taking money away from the people./)`

Answer 7

I would offer you the fact that the last time the budget was balanced was under a Republican, Dwight D Eisenhower. Also if you find the time to compare national debt with the party in the white house you will find they have nothing to do with it. Congress (Democratic for the majority of the last 50 years) are the ones that pass bills. Spending and otherwise, the President can't spend without Congressional approval.

Answer 8

I agree w/ Mr. Taco - I feel they are totally disregarding the debt. The out of control spending of this administration has gone unchecked for 4 years. I understand the significance of defense spending - but what about responsible spending & accountability.

Answer 9

Their solution is to not bother getting out of debt. Ah... remember when being a Republican used to mean smaller government and fiscal responsibility? Those were the good ol' days.

Answer 10

They have no solution. No republican has ever reduced the National Debt. Bush, Bush, and Reagan created 70% of the National Debt. Look at the chart below.

Answer 11

the very first answer made me laugh.

yeah there really isn't a republican solution. it's bad to be on either side, republican or democrat.

why should you settle for one group?