the taxation issue really rests on how far left or right you lean ideologically.
but the tax code has to be reformed in the states, regardless of which party is in power. you can only cut so many programs in a growing country. and to be honest, just cutting spending won't do. but it's not so much as the tax rates, as it is the tax "loopholes" that exist. most americans don't even pay taxes. i mean, how can you run a country with social programs when most people don't contribute?
Cutting spending is the only real solution. Sure, I don't doubt that there will be some tax increases at some point, whether they are in the form of closing loopholes or simply raising the rates. However, we're talking about a government that is spending 40% more than it is receiving in taxes. We're talking about a $1.4 trillion annual government deficit in a $14-15 trillion economy. No one in their right mind is going to suggest taxing the economy an extra 10%. (in reality, the rate would have to be significantly higher than 10%, but that's a conversation for another day).
Again, this is a spending a problem, and suggesting that we can't cut that many programs is pure crap. Let's start with getting rid of Obamacare and reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That's where the real money is anyway. Not even eliminating all pork projects and defense spending would close the budget deficit.
I agree that cutting is absolutely necessary in our current state. Reforming the tax code and removing 'loopholes' will only perhaps net a little bit more income which will not come close to the shortfalls the government is currently experiencing.
Closing 'loopholes' and eliminating inefficiencies is a common crutch phrase used by politicians to justify their spending plans, but such things will always exist and there will be a point at which these inefficiencies will be unable to be reduced any further.
Yes, but how many social programs are you going to cut? Tax reform is a must but I agree in that cutting spending is the most important priority right now. However, it's tough to cut from so many domestic programs that people actually need. You can only cut so much.
The answer is simple: we're going to ultimately cut as much spending as we must to balance the budget. Yes, it's going to suck for a lot of people, but this is the price that must be paid for continuously electing fiscally irresponsible politicians to office. Again, we're talking about a 40% budget deficit. Social security, defense, unemployment/welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and HHS spending are the largest programs (in that order) and constitute more than 75% of the federal budget. Interest on debt spending is the next largest line item, but it only constitutes 4.63%. Accordingly, the cuts will have to come from these programs.
It's also worth noting that Medicare and Social Security are the fastest growing programs, so they will need to be significantly reformed.
You drastically underestimate the value of what corporations primarily, and the richest American citizens secondarily, owe the government in terms of ludicrous tax shelters, tax evasions, entitlements, and perhaps most importantly, reduced salaries/employee benefits and job opportunities. Yeah, I always find it strange how the right wing ignores the lost income that results after American businesses ship jobs overseas, in addition to the billions upon billions of dollars worth of additional burden on social services that are a result of either two things: companies cutting insurance policies and benefits, or cutting jobs and moving them elsewhere altogether.
The broken dynamic of the health insurance situation alone costs the government so much in terms of spending, and yet, the right wing insists that instead of addressing the actual issue of effectively "fixing" healthcare in America they simply want to cut everything, as though the problems then go away? Expect uncovered emergency room visits to skyrocket the moment medicare/medicaid gets cut, expect earlier deaths and increases in uncovered elderly healthcare costs as people are forced to work longer for less due to cuts in social security, and expect the gradual dissolution of the middle class, as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer due to weakened federal policies and influence.
I fail to see how American corporations have done so much to convince the average conservative that they are somehow responsible enough to be allowed to effectively run society (which no matter how you sugarcoat it is exactly the agenda of the anti-government right), the subprime mortgage crisis was basically proof that private interests allowed to operate without oversight will screw things up royally.
On July 26 2011 06:09 Temporality wrote: Here's an idea...shoot every single public official, and furthermore every single individual who even attempts to give the elite class a tax break. It's really that fucking simple. It's absolutely unbelievable that people aren't aware of one of the best times in US history - the 50s and 60s - and how high the tax bracket went then. Some rich were paying literally almost 90% of their income to the government, who created jobs, developed industry, and kept the country competitive with the rest of the world. That has all changed, and now everyone simple accepts the governments opinion that if they hit the rich, somehow magically all the money that they stole FROM US is going to DISAPPEAR and DESTROY OUR COUNTRY.
Unregulated economy simply results in the same thing it has always resulted in. Revolution. Having money means you can make more money than someone who doesn't have money. Eventually this means you hit the "tipping point" of about 90% of wealth in 10% of hands, which in every single fucking instance in the history of the planet has resulted in a bloody fucking revolution. Nobody seems to get the idea.
What bothers me the most is that people don't seem to have a problem with the rich coming into existence in the first place. There is something disgusting about someone earning in a year's time the equivalent of tens or hundreds of thousands of average yearly wages. No one human being is that valuable to our fucking society. I think that's what people are missing, personally. And together, they need to do something about it.
What does this have to do with the debt? Everything. Because the lack of taxes on the rich are the whole reason we're in this situation in the first place. Middle class and low class individuals can't afford to pay 20-35% of their paychecks. The rich can easily afford to pay 60-70%+. But they don't. They pay at most pretty much the same the upper middle class does.
taxing the rich is communism. Gods will is that the poor suffer, didn't you know?
On July 26 2011 06:09 Temporality wrote: Here's an idea...shoot every single public official, and furthermore every single individual who even attempts to give the elite class a tax break. It's really that fucking simple. It's absolutely unbelievable that people aren't aware of one of the best times in US history - the 50s and 60s - and how high the tax bracket went then. Some rich were paying literally almost 90% of their income to the government, who created jobs, developed industry, and kept the country competitive with the rest of the world. That has all changed, and now everyone simple accepts the governments opinion that if they hit the rich, somehow magically all the money that they stole FROM US is going to DISAPPEAR and DESTROY OUR COUNTRY.
Unregulated economy simply results in the same thing it has always resulted in. Revolution. Having money means you can make more money than someone who doesn't have money. Eventually this means you hit the "tipping point" of about 90% of wealth in 10% of hands, which in every single fucking instance in the history of the planet has resulted in a bloody fucking revolution. Nobody seems to get the idea.
What bothers me the most is that people don't seem to have a problem with the rich coming into existence in the first place. There is something disgusting about someone earning in a year's time the equivalent of tens or hundreds of thousands of average yearly wages. No one human being is that valuable to our fucking society. I think that's what people are missing, personally. And together, they need to do something about it.
Because if you think "90%" taxation is optimal for anyone, you could not be more wrong.
And trust me, if anyone tried to lift taxes to 90% today, you'd have the biggest outdrain of money in the US you can possible imagine, and a complete disincentive to achieve anything above the norm, hence slowing down the entire economy to a complete and total stop.
You'd be surprised to see how sensitive inflows and outflows of capital are to taxes, you really can't play around with them as much as you'd want to.
the taxation issue really rests on how far left or right you lean ideologically.
but the tax code has to be reformed in the states, regardless of which party is in power. you can only cut so many programs in a growing country. and to be honest, just cutting spending won't do. but it's not so much as the tax rates, as it is the tax "loopholes" that exist. most americans don't even pay taxes. i mean, how can you run a country with social programs when most people don't contribute?
Cutting spending is the only real solution. Sure, I don't doubt that there will be some tax increases at some point, whether they are in the form of closing loopholes or simply raising the rates. However, we're talking about a government that is spending 40% more than it is receiving in taxes. We're talking about a $1.4 trillion annual government deficit in a $14-15 trillion economy. No one in their right mind is going to suggest taxing the economy an extra 10%. (in reality, the rate would have to be significantly higher than 10%, but that's a conversation for another day).
Again, this is a spending a problem, and suggesting that we can't cut that many programs is pure crap. Let's start with getting rid of Obamacare and reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That's where the real money is anyway. Not even eliminating all pork projects and defense spending would close the budget deficit.
I agree that cutting is absolutely necessary in our current state. Reforming the tax code and removing 'loopholes' will only perhaps net a little bit more income which will not come close to the shortfalls the government is currently experiencing.
Closing 'loopholes' and eliminating inefficiencies is a common crutch phrase used by politicians to justify their spending plans, but such things will always exist and there will be a point at which these inefficiencies will be unable to be reduced any further.
Yes, but how many social programs are you going to cut? Tax reform is a must but I agree in that cutting spending is the most important priority right now. However, it's tough to cut from so many domestic programs that people actually need. You can only cut so much.
The answer is simple: we're going to ultimately cut as much spending as we must to balance the budget. Yes, it's going to suck for a lot of people, but this is the price that must be paid for continuously electing fiscally irresponsible politicians to office. Again, we're talking about a 40% budget deficit. Social security, defense, unemployment/welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and HHS spending are the largest programs (in that order) and constitute more than 75% of the federal budget. Interest on debt spending is the next largest line item, but it only constitutes 4.63%. Accordingly, the cuts will have to come from these programs.
It's also worth noting that Medicare and Social Security are the fastest growing programs, so they will need to be significantly reformed.
I doubt any president or political party will risk doing that. Cutting 14.7 trillion dollars in social services?That is pretty suicidal (politically).
I said that cuts will be made to those programs -- not that they will be eliminated. Also, I agree that in the past, touching any of those programs was political suicide. However, what we're witnessing right now is a signficant shift in American politics. The cuts will be made.
Yeah, cut from the poorest because they can't fight back. But the rich can't pay taxes because it hurts "the economy" (=their pockets). Hopefully the USA will become anytime a progressive country again.
You really think that the "rich" have $1.4 trillion to pay to the government annually in taxes to close the deficit? Of course not. I'll be the first to say that the tax code needs to be reformed to eliminate all of the shelters and loopholes that allow the mega-rich to avoid paying significant sums of taxes. However, you're dreaming if you think that this fix will come anywhere close to eliminating the budget deficit.
the taxation issue really rests on how far left or right you lean ideologically.
but the tax code has to be reformed in the states, regardless of which party is in power. you can only cut so many programs in a growing country. and to be honest, just cutting spending won't do. but it's not so much as the tax rates, as it is the tax "loopholes" that exist. most americans don't even pay taxes. i mean, how can you run a country with social programs when most people don't contribute?
Cutting spending is the only real solution. Sure, I don't doubt that there will be some tax increases at some point, whether they are in the form of closing loopholes or simply raising the rates. However, we're talking about a government that is spending 40% more than it is receiving in taxes. We're talking about a $1.4 trillion annual government deficit in a $14-15 trillion economy. No one in their right mind is going to suggest taxing the economy an extra 10%. (in reality, the rate would have to be significantly higher than 10%, but that's a conversation for another day).
Again, this is a spending a problem, and suggesting that we can't cut that many programs is pure crap. Let's start with getting rid of Obamacare and reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That's where the real money is anyway. Not even eliminating all pork projects and defense spending would close the budget deficit.
I agree that cutting is absolutely necessary in our current state. Reforming the tax code and removing 'loopholes' will only perhaps net a little bit more income which will not come close to the shortfalls the government is currently experiencing.
Closing 'loopholes' and eliminating inefficiencies is a common crutch phrase used by politicians to justify their spending plans, but such things will always exist and there will be a point at which these inefficiencies will be unable to be reduced any further.
Yes, but how many social programs are you going to cut? Tax reform is a must but I agree in that cutting spending is the most important priority right now. However, it's tough to cut from so many domestic programs that people actually need. You can only cut so much.
The answer is simple: we're going to ultimately cut as much spending as we must to balance the budget. Yes, it's going to suck for a lot of people, but this is the price that must be paid for continuously electing fiscally irresponsible politicians to office. Again, we're talking about a 40% budget deficit. Social security, defense, unemployment/welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and HHS spending are the largest programs (in that order) and constitute more than 75% of the federal budget. Interest on debt spending is the next largest line item, but it only constitutes 4.63%. Accordingly, the cuts will have to come from these programs.
It's also worth noting that Medicare and Social Security are the fastest growing programs, so they will need to be significantly reformed.
I doubt any president or political party will risk doing that. Cutting 14.7 trillion dollars in social services?That is pretty suicidal (politically).
I said that cuts will be made to those programs -- not that they will be eliminated. Also, I agree that in the past, touching any of those programs was political suicide. However, what we're witnessing right now is a signficant shift in American politics. The cuts will be made.
Yeah, cut from the poorest because they can't fight back. But the rich can't pay taxes because it hurts "the economy" (=their pockets). Hopefully the USA will become anytime a progressive country again.
You really think that the "rich" have $1.4 trillion to pay to the government annually in taxes to close the deficit? Of course not. I'll be the first to say that the tax code needs to be reformed to eliminate all of the shelters and loopholes that allow the mega-rich to avoid paying significant sums of taxes. However, you're dreaming if you think that this fix will come anywhere close to eliminating the budget deficit.
With "the rich" I include the corporations they manage or supervise. But you're right, with the horrendous costs for the army and everything that comes with it, this would have to be probably cut too.
On July 26 2011 04:41 xXFireandIceXx wrote: [quote]
but the tax code has to be reformed in the states, regardless of which party is in power. you can only cut so many programs in a growing country. and to be honest, just cutting spending won't do. but it's not so much as the tax rates, as it is the tax "loopholes" that exist. most americans don't even pay taxes. i mean, how can you run a country with social programs when most people don't contribute?
Cutting spending is the only real solution. Sure, I don't doubt that there will be some tax increases at some point, whether they are in the form of closing loopholes or simply raising the rates. However, we're talking about a government that is spending 40% more than it is receiving in taxes. We're talking about a $1.4 trillion annual government deficit in a $14-15 trillion economy. No one in their right mind is going to suggest taxing the economy an extra 10%. (in reality, the rate would have to be significantly higher than 10%, but that's a conversation for another day).
Again, this is a spending a problem, and suggesting that we can't cut that many programs is pure crap. Let's start with getting rid of Obamacare and reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That's where the real money is anyway. Not even eliminating all pork projects and defense spending would close the budget deficit.
I agree that cutting is absolutely necessary in our current state. Reforming the tax code and removing 'loopholes' will only perhaps net a little bit more income which will not come close to the shortfalls the government is currently experiencing.
Closing 'loopholes' and eliminating inefficiencies is a common crutch phrase used by politicians to justify their spending plans, but such things will always exist and there will be a point at which these inefficiencies will be unable to be reduced any further.
Yes, but how many social programs are you going to cut? Tax reform is a must but I agree in that cutting spending is the most important priority right now. However, it's tough to cut from so many domestic programs that people actually need. You can only cut so much.
The answer is simple: we're going to ultimately cut as much spending as we must to balance the budget. Yes, it's going to suck for a lot of people, but this is the price that must be paid for continuously electing fiscally irresponsible politicians to office. Again, we're talking about a 40% budget deficit. Social security, defense, unemployment/welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and HHS spending are the largest programs (in that order) and constitute more than 75% of the federal budget. Interest on debt spending is the next largest line item, but it only constitutes 4.63%. Accordingly, the cuts will have to come from these programs.
It's also worth noting that Medicare and Social Security are the fastest growing programs, so they will need to be significantly reformed.
I doubt any president or political party will risk doing that. Cutting 14.7 trillion dollars in social services?That is pretty suicidal (politically).
I said that cuts will be made to those programs -- not that they will be eliminated. Also, I agree that in the past, touching any of those programs was political suicide. However, what we're witnessing right now is a signficant shift in American politics. The cuts will be made.
Yeah, cut from the poorest because they can't fight back. But the rich can't pay taxes because it hurts "the economy" (=their pockets). Hopefully the USA will become anytime a progressive country again.
You really think that the "rich" have $1.4 trillion to pay to the government annually in taxes to close the deficit? Of course not. I'll be the first to say that the tax code needs to be reformed to eliminate all of the shelters and loopholes that allow the mega-rich to avoid paying significant sums of taxes. However, you're dreaming if you think that this fix will come anywhere close to eliminating the budget deficit.
With "the rich" I include the corporations they manage or supervise. But you're right, with the horrendous costs for the army and everything that comes with it, this would have to be probably cut too.
Defense spending is outrageous, that's true. The US just can't afford so many wars.
Cut the military budget. All your problems will be fixed.
This really sums it up very well:
You do not NEED a military that large. So basically: You can argue about ideas and philosophy and try to convince people, or you can just do the simplest and easiest (yet most efficient) thing.
Will this happen? Of course not, because someone with power believes and is able to convince others that you need to spend illogical and astronomically large amounts of money to stay safe.
Cutting spending is the only real solution. Sure, I don't doubt that there will be some tax increases at some point, whether they are in the form of closing loopholes or simply raising the rates. However, we're talking about a government that is spending 40% more than it is receiving in taxes. We're talking about a $1.4 trillion annual government deficit in a $14-15 trillion economy. No one in their right mind is going to suggest taxing the economy an extra 10%. (in reality, the rate would have to be significantly higher than 10%, but that's a conversation for another day).
Again, this is a spending a problem, and suggesting that we can't cut that many programs is pure crap. Let's start with getting rid of Obamacare and reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That's where the real money is anyway. Not even eliminating all pork projects and defense spending would close the budget deficit.
I agree that cutting is absolutely necessary in our current state. Reforming the tax code and removing 'loopholes' will only perhaps net a little bit more income which will not come close to the shortfalls the government is currently experiencing.
Closing 'loopholes' and eliminating inefficiencies is a common crutch phrase used by politicians to justify their spending plans, but such things will always exist and there will be a point at which these inefficiencies will be unable to be reduced any further.
Yes, but how many social programs are you going to cut? Tax reform is a must but I agree in that cutting spending is the most important priority right now. However, it's tough to cut from so many domestic programs that people actually need. You can only cut so much.
The answer is simple: we're going to ultimately cut as much spending as we must to balance the budget. Yes, it's going to suck for a lot of people, but this is the price that must be paid for continuously electing fiscally irresponsible politicians to office. Again, we're talking about a 40% budget deficit. Social security, defense, unemployment/welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and HHS spending are the largest programs (in that order) and constitute more than 75% of the federal budget. Interest on debt spending is the next largest line item, but it only constitutes 4.63%. Accordingly, the cuts will have to come from these programs.
It's also worth noting that Medicare and Social Security are the fastest growing programs, so they will need to be significantly reformed.
I doubt any president or political party will risk doing that. Cutting 14.7 trillion dollars in social services?That is pretty suicidal (politically).
I said that cuts will be made to those programs -- not that they will be eliminated. Also, I agree that in the past, touching any of those programs was political suicide. However, what we're witnessing right now is a signficant shift in American politics. The cuts will be made.
Yeah, cut from the poorest because they can't fight back. But the rich can't pay taxes because it hurts "the economy" (=their pockets). Hopefully the USA will become anytime a progressive country again.
You really think that the "rich" have $1.4 trillion to pay to the government annually in taxes to close the deficit? Of course not. I'll be the first to say that the tax code needs to be reformed to eliminate all of the shelters and loopholes that allow the mega-rich to avoid paying significant sums of taxes. However, you're dreaming if you think that this fix will come anywhere close to eliminating the budget deficit.
With "the rich" I include the corporations they manage or supervise. But you're right, with the horrendous costs for the army and everything that comes with it, this would have to be probably cut too.
Defense spending is outrageous, that's true. The US just can't afford so many wars.
The military wasn't the big bump to the economy. Sure the wars helps, but it costs a TON of money (I think I head the quote of 4 Billion) to run the military even if it was sitting at home. Our economy just kept getting hit by dumb decisions companies and people made. 9/11, Housing Market, Wall Street, misuse of tax dollars. All of those add up to way more than the military ever could cost us. Dollar becomes weaker, Debt increases. But also I really don't mind the debt seems like something that I'm going to pay for regardless, so just wake up go to work and deal with the government wasting my money tomorrow.
On July 26 2011 05:11 TranceStorm wrote: [quote] I agree that cutting is absolutely necessary in our current state. Reforming the tax code and removing 'loopholes' will only perhaps net a little bit more income which will not come close to the shortfalls the government is currently experiencing.
Closing 'loopholes' and eliminating inefficiencies is a common crutch phrase used by politicians to justify their spending plans, but such things will always exist and there will be a point at which these inefficiencies will be unable to be reduced any further.
Yes, but how many social programs are you going to cut? Tax reform is a must but I agree in that cutting spending is the most important priority right now. However, it's tough to cut from so many domestic programs that people actually need. You can only cut so much.
The answer is simple: we're going to ultimately cut as much spending as we must to balance the budget. Yes, it's going to suck for a lot of people, but this is the price that must be paid for continuously electing fiscally irresponsible politicians to office. Again, we're talking about a 40% budget deficit. Social security, defense, unemployment/welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and HHS spending are the largest programs (in that order) and constitute more than 75% of the federal budget. Interest on debt spending is the next largest line item, but it only constitutes 4.63%. Accordingly, the cuts will have to come from these programs.
It's also worth noting that Medicare and Social Security are the fastest growing programs, so they will need to be significantly reformed.
I doubt any president or political party will risk doing that. Cutting 14.7 trillion dollars in social services?That is pretty suicidal (politically).
I said that cuts will be made to those programs -- not that they will be eliminated. Also, I agree that in the past, touching any of those programs was political suicide. However, what we're witnessing right now is a signficant shift in American politics. The cuts will be made.
Yeah, cut from the poorest because they can't fight back. But the rich can't pay taxes because it hurts "the economy" (=their pockets). Hopefully the USA will become anytime a progressive country again.
You really think that the "rich" have $1.4 trillion to pay to the government annually in taxes to close the deficit? Of course not. I'll be the first to say that the tax code needs to be reformed to eliminate all of the shelters and loopholes that allow the mega-rich to avoid paying significant sums of taxes. However, you're dreaming if you think that this fix will come anywhere close to eliminating the budget deficit.
With "the rich" I include the corporations they manage or supervise. But you're right, with the horrendous costs for the army and everything that comes with it, this would have to be probably cut too.
Defense spending is outrageous, that's true. The US just can't afford so many wars.
The military wasn't the big bump to the economy. Sure the wars helps, but it costs a TON of money (I think I head the quote of 4 Billion) to run the military even if it was sitting at home. Our economy just kept getting hit by dumb decisions companies and people made. 9/11, Housing Market, Wall Street, misuse of tax dollars. All of those add up to way more than the military ever could cost us. Dollar becomes weaker, Debt increases. But also I really don't mind the debt seems like something that I'm going to pay for regardless, so just wake up go to work and deal with the government wasting my money tomorrow.
Having the army sitting there costs a lot less than firing rockets. Ammo costs a ton. And unless America wants to solve her economic problem, they need to cut back on their armed forces.
For the thousandth time, cutting the defense budget is not the answer and it's not enough. We have a 40% budget deficit and the defense spending only accounts for 18% of federal spending. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that other stuff that needs to be cut.
i think this thread is a great example of "the best argument against democracy." Seriously, are half of you guys even understanding what you're saying, or did you get some kind of surgery that swapped the positions of your jaw and rectum?
On July 26 2011 06:55 Caller wrote: i think this thread is a great example of "the best argument against democracy." Seriously, are half of you guys even understanding what you're saying, or did you get some kind of surgery that swapped the positions of your jaw and rectum?
On July 26 2011 06:55 xDaunt wrote: For the thousandth time, cutting the defense budget is not the answer and it's not enough. We have a 40% budget deficit and the defense spending only accounts for 18% of federal spending. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that other stuff that needs to be cut.
Yes, but defense is a great place to start. Obviously, you can't get everything you want just from defense but it is a sizeable chunk of expenditures that could be reduced.
On July 26 2011 06:55 xDaunt wrote: For the thousandth time, cutting the defense budget is not the answer and it's not enough. We have a 40% budget deficit and the defense spending only accounts for 18% of federal spending. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that other stuff that needs to be cut.
Yes, but defense is a great place to start. Obviously, you can't get everything you want just from defense but it is a sizeable chunk of expenditures that could be reduced.
Yes, but the problem with basically all of the posts advocating defense spending cuts is that they aren't characterizing it as "a place start" so much as they are characterizing as it as the solution to the problem, which is just willful ignorance.
On July 26 2011 05:33 xXFireandIceXx wrote: [quote]
Yes, but how many social programs are you going to cut? Tax reform is a must but I agree in that cutting spending is the most important priority right now. However, it's tough to cut from so many domestic programs that people actually need. You can only cut so much.
The answer is simple: we're going to ultimately cut as much spending as we must to balance the budget. Yes, it's going to suck for a lot of people, but this is the price that must be paid for continuously electing fiscally irresponsible politicians to office. Again, we're talking about a 40% budget deficit. Social security, defense, unemployment/welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and HHS spending are the largest programs (in that order) and constitute more than 75% of the federal budget. Interest on debt spending is the next largest line item, but it only constitutes 4.63%. Accordingly, the cuts will have to come from these programs.
It's also worth noting that Medicare and Social Security are the fastest growing programs, so they will need to be significantly reformed.
I doubt any president or political party will risk doing that. Cutting 14.7 trillion dollars in social services?That is pretty suicidal (politically).
I said that cuts will be made to those programs -- not that they will be eliminated. Also, I agree that in the past, touching any of those programs was political suicide. However, what we're witnessing right now is a signficant shift in American politics. The cuts will be made.
Yeah, cut from the poorest because they can't fight back. But the rich can't pay taxes because it hurts "the economy" (=their pockets). Hopefully the USA will become anytime a progressive country again.
You really think that the "rich" have $1.4 trillion to pay to the government annually in taxes to close the deficit? Of course not. I'll be the first to say that the tax code needs to be reformed to eliminate all of the shelters and loopholes that allow the mega-rich to avoid paying significant sums of taxes. However, you're dreaming if you think that this fix will come anywhere close to eliminating the budget deficit.
With "the rich" I include the corporations they manage or supervise. But you're right, with the horrendous costs for the army and everything that comes with it, this would have to be probably cut too.
Defense spending is outrageous, that's true. The US just can't afford so many wars.
The military wasn't the big bump to the economy. Sure the wars helps, but it costs a TON of money (I think I head the quote of 4 Billion) to run the military even if it was sitting at home. Our economy just kept getting hit by dumb decisions companies and people made. 9/11, Housing Market, Wall Street, misuse of tax dollars. All of those add up to way more than the military ever could cost us. Dollar becomes weaker, Debt increases. But also I really don't mind the debt seems like something that I'm going to pay for regardless, so just wake up go to work and deal with the government wasting my money tomorrow.
Having the army sitting there costs a lot less than firing rockets. Ammo costs a ton. And unless America wants to solve her economic problem, they need to cut back on their armed forces.
I do not disagree that it costs more to actually use military equipment. The increase was only 30% of what it costs to run the military during peace time. Rockets are used sparingly normally, and bullets are cheap. The increase is large still yes, but it wasn't the only factor. I do believe that we should leave Iraq and Afghanistan, but to who? What happens if some new warlord takes over who is even stronger and smarter? Then it will cost even more to go back.
There are quite a few things that can be done to help the US out, but I don't think the government would actually do them.
In today's strange economy its like the debt actually doesn't mean as much as you think. Basically the ginormous dept is just a bunch of compounding interest. As far as i understand it the US pays off a portion of this debt every year (i think like 500 million? not sure) and all the countries we owe get a lumpsum payment. As long as we keep paying them each year the countries will not demand the entirety to be paid.
Since the majority of it is just interest anyway i dont think the US will ever be forced to pay all it back. Im not an expert on the issue but that is what someone told me.
The answer is simple: we're going to ultimately cut as much spending as we must to balance the budget. Yes, it's going to suck for a lot of people, but this is the price that must be paid for continuously electing fiscally irresponsible politicians to office. Again, we're talking about a 40% budget deficit. Social security, defense, unemployment/welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and HHS spending are the largest programs (in that order) and constitute more than 75% of the federal budget. Interest on debt spending is the next largest line item, but it only constitutes 4.63%. Accordingly, the cuts will have to come from these programs.
It's also worth noting that Medicare and Social Security are the fastest growing programs, so they will need to be significantly reformed.
I doubt any president or political party will risk doing that. Cutting 14.7 trillion dollars in social services?That is pretty suicidal (politically).
I said that cuts will be made to those programs -- not that they will be eliminated. Also, I agree that in the past, touching any of those programs was political suicide. However, what we're witnessing right now is a signficant shift in American politics. The cuts will be made.
Yeah, cut from the poorest because they can't fight back. But the rich can't pay taxes because it hurts "the economy" (=their pockets). Hopefully the USA will become anytime a progressive country again.
You really think that the "rich" have $1.4 trillion to pay to the government annually in taxes to close the deficit? Of course not. I'll be the first to say that the tax code needs to be reformed to eliminate all of the shelters and loopholes that allow the mega-rich to avoid paying significant sums of taxes. However, you're dreaming if you think that this fix will come anywhere close to eliminating the budget deficit.
With "the rich" I include the corporations they manage or supervise. But you're right, with the horrendous costs for the army and everything that comes with it, this would have to be probably cut too.
Defense spending is outrageous, that's true. The US just can't afford so many wars.
The military wasn't the big bump to the economy. Sure the wars helps, but it costs a TON of money (I think I head the quote of 4 Billion) to run the military even if it was sitting at home. Our economy just kept getting hit by dumb decisions companies and people made. 9/11, Housing Market, Wall Street, misuse of tax dollars. All of those add up to way more than the military ever could cost us. Dollar becomes weaker, Debt increases. But also I really don't mind the debt seems like something that I'm going to pay for regardless, so just wake up go to work and deal with the government wasting my money tomorrow.
Having the army sitting there costs a lot less than firing rockets. Ammo costs a ton. And unless America wants to solve her economic problem, they need to cut back on their armed forces.
I do not disagree that it costs more to actually use military equipment. The increase was only 30% of what it costs to run the military during peace time. Rockets are used sparingly normally, and bullets are cheap. The increase is large still yes, but it wasn't the only factor. I do believe that we should leave Iraq and Afghanistan, but to who? What happens if some new warlord takes over who is even stronger and smarter? Then it will cost even more to go back.
There are quite a few things that can be done to help the US out, but I don't think the government would actually do them.
This image is from a book by Joseph Stiglitz, an admittedly liberal economist, but does a good job showing just how much more we've spent in Iraq and Afghanistan than we would otherwise. You are substantially underestimating the expense involved in fighting two wars halfway around the world.
What happens if some new warlord takes over who is even stronger and smarter? Then it will cost even more to go back.
This is what people are failing to understand. We can no longer afford to go back, no matter what may happen in these countries. We simply do not have the money to do so. Americans need to accept that we are, simply put, no longer rich enough to maintain military presence in so many locations. There are some in the military establishment who understand, as former SecDef Gates did, that as a purely financial matter we need to seriously reevaluate our defense priorities.
EDIT: fixed image.
EDIT2: This shouldn't be construed as suggesting that the defense budget itself can be cut adequately, there need to be broad reforms across the board for government spending to regain sustainability.
In the end this problem has gotten so large that who knows how to solve it. Chances are it has to be all the above: closing tax loops, raising taxes on the wealthy, cutting back on social security stuff and the military. Maybe it's only 18% of the budget, but it is 18% of the budget and cuts need to come from everywhere.
Here's one thing I've heard and I wonder if anyone can speak to it. Is it possible to inflate your way out of debt? Essentially, you have to pay off all foreign debt because the value of those debts remains the same no matter what you're currency worth. However, once that's done and you only owe money to yourself, then you can inflate your way out because the money borrowed to yourself remains the same number, but decreases in buying power. Thus the total value of the debt decreases, but there's more money (devalued) available to pay it off.
I'm no economist, but I believe this has occurred a few times in history- possibly Canadian, can anyone speak to this?
On July 26 2011 04:41 xDaunt wrote: Can we finally just admit and accept that democrats simply haven't offered any meaningful spending cuts?
The problem is that they are not politically in a position to do so, the same way that the Republicans cannot politically afford to offer meaningful revenue increases.
The simple fact of the matter is that the budget deficit can only be meaningfully closed by a combination of cutting the major entitlement programs (Medicare especially, but also Social Security/Medicaid) and raising taxes (closing corporate loopholes, taxing capital gains, top bracket increases). Unfortunately, both ends are poltical third rails, and the Democrats represent interests that would kick them out of office if they cut entitltements significantly, the same way that Republicans represent interests that kick them out if they raise taxes significantly.
So what both parties are effectively doing is engaging in a chest-thumping game, so that when the compromises are finally made, both sides can tell their constituents that they tried their best to fight for their interests and deserve to be re-elected despite technically losing ground. I have little faith in democracy in general, but I trust that politicians are looking out for their own self-interest. While this does mean that they won't let America slide into economic ruin, it also means that they will draw out the prevention process as long as possible in the pursuit of political gain.
On July 26 2011 05:16 Danger_Duck wrote: You guys forget. The US can always print more dollars. No individual European country has the power to make more Euros to appear to pay off their debt
every country in the world can print more money. but that wouldnt sort anything.
let me tell you, imagine;
1 apple is 5 euro/10 dollars right now in the global market and you have 1 euro only. so you go and print 4 more euros thinking you will have 5 euro in the end and finally manage to buy the apple which will sort your problems but unfortunately its not that simple and wont happen because lets say there are 100 euros around the world and 200 dolars around the world due to 1 apple price in euro/dollar. with printing 4 more euros there will be 104 euro and 200 dolars overall. which means there will be more euros in the market and less dollars, so it makes euro less valuable and dolar more valuable. at the end it turns back to 100 euro and 192 dollars in the values market and 1 apple will cost five-six point something euros/nine point something dollars because of that.
you have printed 4 more euros so you can have the 5 euro to buy the apple right? but it costs more than 5 euros now unfortunately so all you have done was pointless basicly. it only made you have more money in your own currency for short term spendings which is by the way is still not letting you buy anything new at all but in the long term you have also ruined everything because your currency lost some value. you lose either way.
well on the bright side, you can wipe your ass with that printed out 4 euros.
The word you're looking for is inflation, and not every country in the world can print money, trust me Greece wishes it could just print money.
And actually, its more than short term spendings, because in your case, the 4 dollars you borrowed are only worth 3 "ancient" dollars ajusted for inflation.
So you're borrowing 4 and giving back 4 that are only worth 3, so you're making a profit, which is precisely what the US is doing.
first of all; greece cant print out money on their own simply because they are on huge loan debts plus they are part of the EU. If you are from a country that is in EU, all of the money printing issue must be planned and controlled by whole EU, it demands the approval and touch of all. its not indivudually since EU has a very different political approach towards indivudual country growth. Everything is controlled and limited to the EU standarts and EU average. A corn farmer from Italy cant produce more than what is limited to him. If he produces 100 tons of corn and the limit is 50 tons, his other 50 tons must be burned because he wont be able to sell it in any EU market.
the reason why America is printing out more money and Europe doesnt want to is not really related to the budget deficit at all. Trying to sort the budget deficit solely with printing out more money is totally useless and pointless because it has no effect on it. You can only sort your budget deficit via planning and shaping your budget expenses to the current budget deficit and growth rate, balancing it so to say. You either cut or take out loans.
EPT![[image loading]](http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/02/27/19/596-20080227-USIRAQ-WARCOSTS.large.prod_affiliate.91.jpg)
