OT: How to deal with our skyrocketing deficit...

[1Clemzunfan]

There is actually very little correlation between debt/GDP ratios and relative interest rates. If so Japan and Italy would be paying astronomical rates, yet Japan’s rates have been negative for most of this decade.

The example I gave was again a very simple worldly example of how debt influences rates. But you are right, there are many many different factors involved in interest rates beyond deficits. Global balance sheets and economies relative to our own, monetary policy by the Fed, inflation, etc. Again, you are right in that deficit spending alone does not drive rates, but in a vacuum it is a factor.

 

[housess1]

In most of the threads above, there is agreement that SS needs to be fixed. Just changing age of eligibility is a political no go. There has to be incentives to keep people working longer. How about anyone that passes their official retirement age (66 1/2 and rising) and continues to work stops paying their portion of SS (freeze benefit increases for taking SS later). Change the idiotic rules on required withdrawals on 401Ks. People will work beyond 70 years old if not forced to make withdrawals.

 

[Pluffmudd]

Russia can't afford to do that. China can, but they honestly are just concerned with Asia. They want to be the top dog economically and be the dominant military force in the greater Asia area. If we left them alone they would probably become stronger trade partners with us. France, Germany, and the UK will either work on peaceful relations with Russia or move into the strategic positions that we vacate. If they don't then they will just capitulate. Either they take responsbility and pay for their own protection or they don't pay and listen to whatever Russia says.

If we pull out of the middle east then countries like Turkey or Egypt will have to take control of the region. And for all our differences, those countries don't want nutjob theocracies running the region either.

Lastly, at the end of the day, we will still maintain a very proactive defense force that is more localized with our backbone in the Air Force and Navy. Since we also still have a large nuclear arsenal, and missile defense technology is getting better and better, we are nearly untouchable as is. We are protected to the north by our snowflake allies (pun intended) and on either side by large oceans. To the south we have a weak whatever you want to call Mexico, but they fear us and dare not try anything.

Haha no China isn’t only concerned with Asia. This is an incredibly naive statement. They are literally spending billions in Africa and buying up utilities and companies in SA namely Brazil. You haven’t a clue what you are talking about

 

[dzf664]

The number of dumbass comments in this thread is scary.

 

[hughscott]

This is not meant to be a partisan thread, just a discussion on a shared problem that both political parties have contributed to over the years along with indifference and ignorance from the voting public. The latest numbers show that annual deficit spending increased 17% just in the last year, in spite of a booming economy. Its expected to increase at an even greater percentage over the next year. Deficit spending is now the highest it has been since the tail end of the last recession. That is startling considering that we are running recession era deficits in a thriving economy. Bottom line, the tax cuts have boosted the economy, but as has always happened in the past, the economic gains from these tax cuts are not sufficient to offset the lost tax revenue given the way they were targeted.

That said, we must do something to stem the bleeding. What are your proposals? As FYI, there are only 4 areas that materially impact the deficit. They are spending cuts in one of 3 areas: 1) Defense spending 2) Medicare/Medicaid 3) Social Security. The fourth area is increasing revenue by raising taxes. I believe reform in all 4 areas is needed.

What are your proposals for reforming the 4 areas above (Defense, Medicare, Social Security, & Taxes) to reign in the deficit? Again, things like food stamps and the like aren't material for this discussion. That is peanuts. It will have to be reform in all of the 4 categories above to chip away at the $1 Trillion annual deficit we are headed for in next years budget year alone.

By the way, here is a good article summarizing the latest deficit spending numbers and the impacts on the average American. Here is a startling factoid... the last time we enjoyed an economy with unemployment under 4% (year 2000) we were running a budget SURPLUS of almost $300 billion. And now a scary thought... what happens to these deficits when the next economic downturn happens and how limited will we be in stemming it with stimulus spending as we have in the past? We wont be able to use stimulus packages to carry us through as we always have in the past. It's a scary thought.

Interested in a good discussion...

I would propose a five year budget freeze on all spending, including the military.
Everyone must sacrifice

 

[Daytontiger]

I just wanted to say that I appreciate this thread very much and wanted to ask a question.

At what point does "raising taxes" not in and of itself political suicide? How bad does it have to get? I think a rollback of both the Trump and Bush tax cuts is a good place to start.

I do think that cuts to high income earners using Social Security and Medicare should be enacted. The whole point of this is to be a safety net for the elderly poor and infirmed. How about eliminating the cap on how much is eligible to be taxed for social security? It would go a long way towards making it solvent.

Certainly a look at waste in all programs is needed. A reduction in defense spending is an obvious need. I have no idea how much that could reduce the deficit.

I am not trying to make this partisan, but I do think that a general agreement that we are all in a society that provides for one another and to be OK with that, instead of constantly looking at our neighbor and wondering what they're getting that I'm not would go a long way. I understand this is a pipe dream. But demonization of the poor is a big problem that taints the discussion on true entitlement reform. It certainly distorts the issues at play. Entitlement fraud happens, but it is just not a big enough problem to even make a dent in the deficit.

Those are my thoughts, maybe too partisan. But I would be more than fine with a return to Clinton-Gingrich relative sanity opposed to what we have now.

--Mr. DT

 

[Tiger2526]

This is not meant to be a partisan thread, just a discussion on a shared problem that both political parties have contributed to over the years along with indifference and ignorance from the voting public. The latest numbers show that annual deficit spending increased 17% just in the last year, in spite of a booming economy. Its expected to increase at an even greater percentage over the next year. Deficit spending is now the highest it has been since the tail end of the last recession. That is startling considering that we are running recession era deficits in a thriving economy. Bottom line, the tax cuts have boosted the economy, but as has always happened in the past, the economic gains from these tax cuts are not sufficient to offset the lost tax revenue given the way they were targeted.

That said, we must do something to stem the bleeding. What are your proposals? As FYI, there are only 4 areas that materially impact the deficit. They are spending cuts in one of 3 areas: 1) Defense spending 2) Medicare/Medicaid 3) Social Security. The fourth area is increasing revenue by raising taxes. I believe reform in all 4 areas is needed.

What are your proposals for reforming the 4 areas above (Defense, Medicare, Social Security, & Taxes) to reign in the deficit? Again, things like food stamps and the like aren't material for this discussion. That is peanuts. It will have to be reform in all of the 4 categories above to chip away at the $1 Trillion annual deficit we are headed for in next years budget year alone.

By the way, here is a good article summarizing the latest deficit spending numbers and the impacts on the average American. Here is a startling factoid... the last time we enjoyed an economy with unemployment under 4% (year 2000) we were running a budget SURPLUS of almost $300 billion. And now a scary thought... what happens to these deficits when the next economic downturn happens and how limited will we be in stemming it with stimulus spending as we have in the past? We wont be able to use stimulus packages to carry us through as we always have in the past. It's a scary thought.

Interested in a good discussion...

I'm interested in seeing the balance sheet and how they come up with these numbers. That would help fuel the discussion. I'm a numbers guy and need to see the whole picture to truly weigh in. Good topic though

Disregard, I found the latest... Carry on

 

[The Orange Wave]

The example I gave was again a very simple worldly example of how debt influences rates. But you are right, there are many many different factors involved in interest rates beyond deficits. Global balance sheets and economies relative to our own, monetary policy by the Fed, inflation, etc. Again, you are right in that deficit spending alone does not drive rates, but in a vacuum it is a factor.

One key factor aside from our own revenue/expenditures that will drive the deficit is trade. Whether you agree or not with Trump if he can successfully shake up the balance of trade it would have profound impact on our economy and deficit. You brought up China beforehand and is an important point. The question is why does China own so much of our debt and can they use that to influence interest rates or our economy?

Think of the mechanics of a Chinese-US transaction. When China sells more goods than it buys they have an excess supply of dollars. Which they then take in and invest in risk free US treasuries. This excess demand for treasuries creates downward pressure on interest rates. Could they send those reserves to another currency? Not really as there is no market as deep and secure as US debt. They reduce holdings from time to time but it would be mutually destructive if they stopped buying treasuries or forced higher rates as it depreciates the value of the trillions of treasuries they already own. When rates rise the price of bonds goes down.

Back to Trump, if the terms of trade are reduced or balanced then the US economy would benefit and China would have no excess supply of dollars to buy our debt. They key reason why Japan has so low rates and such high debt is that their debt is in Yen and domestically owned. If the US trade deficit were balance we still may spend too much, but there would be less foreign ownership of our debt.

There are a lot of other costs/benefits to his policy, but there is some merit to it when it comes to the deficit and how it is financed.

 

[blythewood tigers]

I think it is always interesting reading these posts that not once, ever, is it mentioned or even suggested, that we should follow the law. Doesn't anyone ever find that fact as odd?

You know, there was once a time when some very wise (and albeit flawed) men who proposed that a Nation should be ran by the people, to their representatives and finally by "law". It was suggested, proposed and ratified that the people should be FREE! This was all new because history had taught them/us one very important fact, when a person is free, they are at their most productive state, when a person is productive, they inherently create an environment(s) around them that become productive as well. This term is called spontaneous order and THE only reason "markets" existed for thousands of years to NEAR present time.

The Constitution of this Country, the greatest (and legal) freedom document that has ever existed, doesn't even recognize most of OP's proposals. Doesn't that tell us something, or have we all forgotten who we are?

 

[blythewood tigers]

One key factor aside from our own revenue/expenditures that will drive the deficit is trade. Whether you agree or not with Trump if he can successfully shake up the balance of trade it would have profound impact on our economy and deficit. You brought up China beforehand and is an important point. The question is why does China own so much of our debt and can they use that to influence interest rates or our economy?

Think of the mechanics of a Chinese-US transaction. When China sells more goods than it buys they have an excess supply of dollars. Which they then take in and invest in risk free US treasuries. This excess demand for treasuries creates downward pressure on interest rates. Could they send those reserves to another currency? Not really as there is no market as deep and secure as US debt. They reduce holdings from time to time but it would be mutually destructive if they stopped buying treasuries or forced higher rates as it depreciates the value of the trillions of treasuries they already own. When rates rise the price of bonds goes down.

Back to Trump, if the terms of trade are reduced or balanced then the US economy would benefit and China would have no excess supply of dollars to buy our debt. They key reason why Japan has so low rates and such high debt is that their debt is in Yen and domestically owned. If the US trade deficit were balance we still may spend too much, but there would be less foreign ownership of our debt.

There are a lot of other costs/benefits to his policy, but there is some merit to it when it comes to the deficit and how it is financed.

Trump, just like every President before him for the last 100 years is not concerned with "balance", balance in trade, balance in the budget, balance in anything that has to do with monetary value. There can never be a balance if the intention is to create an imbalance.

This may sound odd to you, but the reason why China MUST have dollars has nothing to do with treasuries and everything to do with energy. Treasuries, by comparison, is peanuts vs. the dollars required by China to purchase energy via a handful of countries who's resources are essentially controlled by dollars via the same reason China must have dollars.

This methodical, time consuming process, first engineered by the Europeans and then infiltrated into the US, consumes the world into literally controlled proxy energy zones. Its a long story, but in short, when this energy process is threatened, so comes the so-called "wars", "bad men dictators" we must overthrow, etc.. This is as old as time/history itself.

 

[blythewood tigers]

I just wanted to say that I appreciate this thread very much and wanted to ask a question.

At what point does "raising taxes" not in and of itself political suicide? How bad does it have to get? I think a rollback of both the Trump and Bush tax cuts is a good place to start.

I do think that cuts to high income earners using Social Security and Medicare should be enacted. The whole point of this is to be a safety net for the elderly poor and infirmed. How about eliminating the cap on how much is eligible to be taxed for social security? It would go a long way towards making it solvent.

Certainly a look at waste in all programs is needed. A reduction in defense spending is an obvious need. I have no idea how much that could reduce the deficit.

I am not trying to make this partisan, but I do think that a general agreement that we are all in a society that provides for one another and to be OK with that, instead of constantly looking at our neighbor and wondering what they're getting that I'm not would go a long way. I understand this is a pipe dream. But demonization of the poor is a big problem that taints the discussion on true entitlement reform. It certainly distorts the issues at play. Entitlement fraud happens, but it is just not a big enough problem to even make a dent in the deficit.

Those are my thoughts, maybe too partisan. But I would be more than fine with a return to Clinton-Gingrich relative sanity opposed to what we have now.

--Mr. DT

The original intent of a "tax" was to then "spend". This is why, historically speaking, taxes could NEVER exceed revenue. Beginning in 1913, this ceased to exist. At this point in time, "taxes" are lingo for getting elected or not. Currently, our government creates currency out of thin air without creating "taxes" to burden its citizenry and finally to spend. Long story short, socialism has never worked in the past so we shouldn't have the false impression that it will work now just because our government has "found" a short-term (100 years or so) solution, i.e. finance all of our productive output.

The solution(s) to all of our problems already exist in the Constitution.

 

[blythewood tigers]

Gotta cut spending and increase revenue.

Tax reform is not helping. Not hurting either (because it's mostly offset by increases in individual and small corp tax income).


No one wants to hear this, but we've got to increase taxes on everyone in order to break this cycle. We could potentially have a $1T deficit in fiscal year (which just started) '19.

Increasing taxes is not the solution in our present day environment because taxes are no longer historically connected to spending. In other words, if US citizens incurred a direct tax based on current expenditures, every man, women and child could be taxed 100% and we would NOT come close to funding our government.

The combination of monetary devaluation (number one), government finance/spending (number two) and a direct taxation on our private property (number three) has created the most toxic environment for freedom in all of human history. Currently, there are more "slaves" (financial and physical) than have ever existed and the number in increasing dramatically every year.

 

[pharout73]

It's an interesting idea but then it weirdly becomes a benefit for the wealthy. The wealthiest people live roughly 10 years longer than the poorest people.

Separating the wheat from the chaf...

 

[GoodWord28]

Increasing taxes is not the solution in our present day environment because taxes are no longer historically connected to spending. In other words, if US citizens incurred a direct tax based on current expenditures, every man, women and child could be taxed 100% and we would NOT come close to funding our government.

The combination of monetary devaluation (number one), government finance/spending (number two) and a direct taxation on our private property (number three) has created the most toxic environment for freedom in all of human history. Currently, there are more "slaves" (financial and physical) than have ever existed and the number in increasing dramatically every year.

Increasing income and reducing expense is most certainly the answer. Wtf are you talking about? It's not complicated. It's just really complicated to implement. Because it's career suicide.

 

[isleofpalmstiger]

Term limits will take care of ALL this!!!!

 

[Willence]

Term limits will take care of ALL this!!!!

How so?

 

[Willence]

Increasing income and reducing expense is most certainly the answer. Wtf are you talking about? It's not complicated. It's just really complicated to implement. Because it's career suicide.

Raising taxes does not increase income. We had lower taxes this year and highest income ever... There are better ways.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Heard it mentioned that Trump might just default on much of the US debt. Apparently, it is his business model. Not intending to drop a grenade and run here. Is there a connection to debt and spending in the above context? Could a President just default on much of our global debt? What are the ramifications? Would it lead to a dramatic rise in interest rates and grind our economy to a halt?

What if they audit the Fed and find out its crooked and always has been? I would favor the US printing its own currency again. Leave the Fed. This would essentially be a world economic reset though. The Federal Reserve Banks are private for profit institutions. Some think President Kennedy was assassinated because he planned for the US to start issuing its own notes.

 

[TigerGrowls]

No doubt tax cuts have ignited the economy but we now have evidence that it is doing so at the expense of significant deficits. They are part of the problem. This means economic stimulus will be short lived as interest rates start to rise with these growing deficits. There needs to be a balance. Consider reading the article that was linked. It gives a good summary of the impact.

They need to keep the tax package and decrease spending. Trump irritated me with the omnibus bill, but he said he would never sign another like it. I and many others will be watching. I recall seeing that in 5 to 7 years, the interest on the debt will be more than military spending. We will be in big trouble then. I heard a plan mentioned online where some are postulating that the US will somehow bump the price of gold way up and pay if off that way. I would love it if they would audit the Fed and put them out of business too. I would fully endorse the US taking control of printing its own money.

 

[FreeSC]

My proposal?
Follow the Constitution.
The Constitution details EXACTLY what powers the federal government is given, and the 10th Amendment says that any powers not SPECIFICALLY delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States and to the people.
Here is an incomplete list of unconstitutional federal programs:
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Housing & Urban Development
Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms
Air Force
EPA
Thete are many more....

Also, stop trying to police the world. Bring our troops home.

 

[GoodWord28]

Raising taxes does not increase income. We had lower taxes this year and highest income ever... There are better ways.

We're counting on increased spending at some point to provide more tax income. LOL if you think we have time to wait on something that will likely never happen.

Balanced budgets, reduced expense, and greater income.

 

[cutigers532]

No doubt tax cuts have ignited the economy but we now have evidence that it is doing so at the expense of significant deficits. They are part of the problem. This means economic stimulus will be short lived as interest rates start to rise with these growing deficits. There needs to be a balance. Consider reading the article that was linked. It gives a good summary of the impact.

This is the problem that we have though. The economy grows when the government is less burdensome through taxes. The answer should not be oh well lets slwo economic growth but raising taxes again. The answer is find a way to cut SPENDING.

 

[The Orange Wave]

They need to keep the tax package and decrease spending. Trump irritated me with the omnibus bill, but he said he would never sign another like it. I and many others will be watching. I recall seeing that in 5 to 7 years, the interest on the debt will be more than military spending. We will be in big trouble then. I heard a plan mentioned online where some are postulating that the US will somehow bump the price of gold way up and pay if off that way. I would love it if they would audit the Fed and put them out of business too. I would fully endorse the US taking control of printing its own money.

It's easy to say "cut spending" but then offer no ideas how that is actually done. And if you are not willing to cut benefits to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid then it is a non-starter in having any impact on spending and the source of spending growth.

Bumping the price of gold and then paying off the debt is the most foolish plan possible. Who is going to buy all the gold the US sells to pay off the debt? And why would they pay an inflated price when the supply on the market skyrockets when the US sells it?

You would rather have politicians at the controls of printing money? Worked great in Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

 

[cutigers532]

Haha no China isn’t only concerned with Asia. This is an incredibly naive statement. They are literally spending billions in Africa and buying up utilities and companies in SA namely Brazil. You haven’t a clue what you are talking about

My point is that China is not goingto start building bases around the globe trying to control things from a military perspective like we do. They want military dominance in the greater Asian area and to be the top economic power which includes what you listed. Pouring billions of dollars into Africa is not a strategic military move, but an economic one. Sure they will increase their military influence around the world, but they currently don't have the militaristic infrastructure to replace us on a global scene. They have blossomed enough economically to compete with us and have mulitple global interests.

 

[cutigers532]

Haha no China isn’t only concerned with Asia. This is an incredibly naive statement. They are literally spending billions in Africa and buying up utilities and companies in SA namely Brazil. You haven’t a clue what you are talking about

This is a good read and goes much deeper in depth into what I was trying to briefly summarize into a paragraph on a message board.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...n_china_military_expansion_-_hpsci_may_17.pdf

 

[Pluffmudd]

My point is that China is not goingto start building bases around the globe trying to control things from a military perspective like we do. They want military dominance in the greater Asian area and to be the top economic power which includes what you listed. Pouring billions of dollars into Africa is not a strategic military move, but an economic one. Sure they will increase their military influence around the world, but they currently don't have the militaristic infrastructure to replace us on a global scene. They have blossomed enough economically to compete with us and have mulitple global interests.

Perhaps your accurate but my experiences with China through business and school paints a different picture for me. They are absolutely playing for keeps and I fully expect them to expand their military presence in these area to protect their investments. In fact I was in China recently with a few others, some from several countries with in Africa and a Chinese CEO of a Brazilian Utilities (now a Chinese government owned utility). Essentialy the Africans were in denial what was happening on their continent, China’s bacially colonizing. The Chinese CEO was in the background noding in agreement.

 

[diehardtiger1989]

It's really simple. Cut off the government's (ie, politicians) access to credit.
That's when they'll really make good decisions on taxes and spending.

 

[cutigers532]

Perhaps your accurate but my experiences with China through business and school paints a different picture for me. They are absolutely playing for keeps and I fully expect them to expand their military presence in these area to protect their investments. In fact I was in China recently with a few others, some from several countries with in Africa and a Chinese CEO of a Brazilian Utilities (now a Chinese government owned utility). Essentialy the Africans were in denial what was happening on their continent, China’s bacially colonizing. The Chinese CEO was in the background noding in agreement.

The global labor market is going to go through several shifts in the coming years. Number one, many jobs will be lost to automation. Number two, as countries that have been providing super cheap labor (i.e. China) begin to develop, and in their case step more into free markets. the supply of super cheap labor that will still be needed, in spite of increased automation, will shift to other places. Those other places may be Africa. I sometimes wonder if that is the long play for China in Africa. They will continue to grow and quasi-colonize parts of Africa for cheap labor. In the long run, though it may appear inhumane or corrupt, it could be in the benefit of the African continent. It will likely bring stability to the region and they will actively work to diminish the strength of the Boko Haram type groups to protect their interests. Even though the people will be paid very little like the Chinese were and to some extent still are, it may improve the overall health and wellness of the area. Who knows a hundred years down the road, a coalition of African countries might be the new China.

 

[MBRO]

This is mind blowing.

 

[Willence]

View embedded media

This is mind blowing.

It's a great thing.

 

[clempzenbill]

No doubt tax cuts have ignited the economy but we now have evidence that it is doing so at the expense of significant deficits. They are part of the problem. This means economic stimulus will be short lived as interest rates start to rise with these growing deficits. There needs to be a balance. Consider reading the article that was linked. It gives a good summary of the impact.

That's all beside my point: the budget GROWS TOO FAST. slow the growth of the budget to the point that GDP grows faster every year. Eventually the revenues from a bigger and bigger economy will surpass our corrupt bloated and wasteful governments thirst for money.Make the government function like every business. The only reason they can get away with it is our currency being the world currency, allowing our government to borrow endless amounts of money with nothing backing it up. If and when the US dollar is not the world standard currency this whole house of cards will come crashing down.

 

[scotchtiger]

This point is somewhat misleading. There is a pretty substantial gap in life expectancy by wealth. Increasing the retirement age would really negatively affect lower income people (the ones for whom SS payments are hugely important). You push the retirement age up to 70 and then they're getting less than a decade of payments while the more well off people who don't need the money get close to 20 years. It's something to keep in mind and it's why I don't (currently) support raising retirement age.

Source. There is a graph there for women that is similar but I didn't want to eat too much room.

That’s an interesting graph. Honestly didn’t realize that there was such a strong correlation.

It does make you wonder if the life choices that result in lower income strongly correlate to the life choices that result in shorter life expectancy. For example, smoking is more common among poor to lower middle than it is among upper middle to rich. Bad diet, drug use, etc are probably consistent with that as well.

Then you have to ask, at what point are people responsible for their own life choices?

A study like that shouldn’t be hard to conduct and could inform how we handle raising the SS collection age.

I have no issue raising the age if we phase it in over time and allow people to plan. I strongly oppose increasing the contribution income limit. This is a safety net program and once you reach a certain income, you no longer need to be contributing to a government run safety net.

 

[blythewood tigers]

Increasing income and reducing expense is most certainly the answer. Wtf are you talking about? It's not complicated. It's just really complicated to implement. Because it's career suicide.

First, the government doesn't have an "income".

Second, it is monetarily impossible to reduce the "expense" of government if the currency in use continues to devalue at an ever increasing pace overtime, while simultaneously true production (the sole ingredient that pays for literally everything) is lost and financial engineering (new ways to compound debt) runs rampant.

I also agree with you, it became career suicide over 100 years ago and will continue to do so until the dollar -energy link is broken by demand from countries that no longer want to play the game.

 

[GoodWord28]

First, the government doesn't have an "income".

Second, it is monetarily impossible to reduce the "expense" of government if the currency in use continues to devalue at an ever increasing pace overtime, while simultaneously true production (the sole ingredient that pays for literally everything) is lost and financial engineering (new ways to compound debt) runs rampant.

I also agree with you, it became career suicide over 100 years ago and will continue to do so until the dollar -energy link is broken by demand from countries that no longer want to play the game.

They most certainly have income. You have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[blythewood tigers]

They most certainly have income. You have no clue what you're talking about.

Oh, the good ole, "you have no clue what you're talking about" reply.

You obviously have listened to modern era T.V. and have "income" confused with "confiscation". Let me explain.

Income is derived from production, i.e. you produce a product, someone pays you for it and a profit comes from it. This becomes your (in business, a wage for an individual) income.

A government entity can NOT produce anything. So instead of using the word confiscation, which is how ALL government(s) get their money, i.e. taxes, they like to refer to it as "income" or "revenue", to make it sound nice and neat. I mean, could you imagine how many people would freak out if your State representative said they needed to confiscate an extra million dollars this year to pay for our roads! No, he/she will simply say, they need more income and raise our taxes, and we all sleep better at night.

 

[GoodWord28]

Oh, the good ole, "you have no clue what you're talking about" reply.

You obviously have listened to modern era T.V. and have "income" confused with "confiscation". Let me explain.

Income is derived from production, i.e. you produce a product, someone pays you for it and a profit comes from it. This becomes your (in business, a wage for an individual) income.

A government entity can NOT produce anything. So instead of using the word confiscation, which is how ALL government(s) get their money, i.e. taxes, they like to refer to it as "income" or "revenue", to make it sound nice and neat. I mean, could you imagine how many people would freak out if your State representative said they needed to confiscate an extra million dollars this year to pay for our roads! No, he/she will simply say, they need more income and raise our taxes, and we all sleep better at night.

I'd love to keep talking to you, but I don't want anyone to confuse me with you.

 

[blythewood tigers]

I'd love to keep talking to you, but I don't want anyone to confuse me with you.

Yeah.... we wouldn't want that to happen now would we!

 

[TigerGrowls]

It's easy to say "cut spending" but then offer no ideas how that is actually done. And if you are not willing to cut benefits to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid then it is a non-starter in having any impact on spending and the source of spending growth.

Bumping the price of gold and then paying off the debt is the most foolish plan possible. Who is going to buy all the gold the US sells to pay off the debt? And why would they pay an inflated price when the supply on the market skyrockets when the US sells it?

You would rather have politicians at the controls of printing money? Worked great in Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

A lot of others on here have listed obvious ways but some would be,
- get rid of baseline budgeting.
- get rid of whole departments. Go by the constitutional requirements and responsibilites for federal govt. Send everything else to the states.
- Renegotiate trade deals (in progress)
- Get rid of most of foreign aid.
- Make the CBO independent and unpartisan and give them real power to get rid of inefficient wasteful practices.
- Make military cut wasteful spending as much as possible.
- Raise retirement age.
- Audit the fed and take appropriate action on results.

Regarding bumping price of gold, I am just stating what I have read....not an endorsement per se, but would be interesting to see a finished conceptual idea on it. No one would buy it. We would give the fed the gold and say take it or leave it....debts gone.

I would rather have congress that is accountable to the citizens in charge of money supply than a private for profit non accountable organization that is currently in charge. Venezuela and Zimbabwe represents the endpoint of hyper inflation which is where the US will eventually end up anyway when the interest on the debt payment gets so high that it surpasses the entire revenue discounting all other spending. It will happen no matter who is the President or what party runs the country. The national debt must be addressed, but I think the solution will not end up actually paying it off in a conventional sense.....just my gut feeling here.

 

[Pluffmudd]

The global labor market is going to go through several shifts in the coming years. Number one, many jobs will be lost to automation. Number two, as countries that have been providing super cheap labor (i.e. China) begin to develop, and in their case step more into free markets. the supply of super cheap labor that will still be needed, in spite of increased automation, will shift to other places. Those other places may be Africa. I sometimes wonder if that is the long play for China in Africa. They will continue to grow and quasi-colonize parts of Africa for cheap labor. In the long run, though it may appear inhumane or corrupt, it could be in the benefit of the African continent. It will likely bring stability to the region and they will actively work to diminish the strength of the Boko Haram type groups to protect their interests. Even though the people will be paid very little like the Chinese were and to some extent still are, it may improve the overall health and wellness of the area. Who knows a hundred years down the road, a coalition of African countries might be the new China.

Your 100% accurate on the labor market and automation pushing China towards africa. But what comes along with what is essentially colonization is militarization. The reality is the real game for China is continued economic development to take over the US.

 

[scotchtiger]

A
Finally, all Americans are going to have to bite the bullet on tax increases. The wealthy are going to have to pay more than their "fair share". Not to the point of making them middle class, but enough to make them feel it.

You raise tax by say 5 or 10 thousand on the middle class, it changes their life style. Maybe they don't even go on vacation. The upper middle class and the elite have a lot of fat to trim B4 their life style, much less being able to keep the lights on are impacted.

What is "wealthy?" What is a "fair share?"

I'm not wealthy, but I pay 2-2.5 times the average federal effective rate. I pay double-digit multiples of the average actual federal tax payment. I use very little government services relative to the general public.

Am I paying my "fair share?"

Why should "feeling it" be used as a way to logical way to enact tax policy?