seriously though whatever percentage more they take from us they should take from en lement programs
I just assume we start with the social engineering. Probably starting with the people who use/abuse/benefit from en lements. We need to re-educate the rabble and keep them from pro-creating. We won't have to cut the legs out from underneath the welfare class so much as train it to stand on it's own.
Of course, this is radical theory, but it shouldn't be.
You need to get better at doing taxes.
...700 billion dollars per year in defense and we can't stop people from sneaking in from Mexico...we spend 10 times more than any other country and almost as much as all the other countries combined on military, and we are at least a decade ahead technologically....and that's the stuff we know about...if we're gonna make cuts, cut the military spending...
I actually agree to a certain extent. Lets get the out of the Middle East. It's a hole that we can't win. I'm not saying we don't need a flexible and strong military and I still want to be able to project force worldwide (read carrier groups) but 700 billion is a lot of moolah. We can be secure for less.
the problem is the more kids they crap out the more money they get
Even stupid uneducated people are rational.
if you set up a system that rewards dumb es to have babies they will have babies.
free food, cheap housing, free money to pay for previous housing, buy kids that ain't good for em and makes em fat, while i go out and party at night with my baby daddy who lives with me even though i say im single. So i can get all of the aforementioned .
yes i see the inherent irony that none of these dumb es would use the word aforementioned.
These arguments on taxes should be lower or higher are worthless without posting your gross income and how much you paid in income tax.
i got $2 back this year
You're still only looking at spending. That's like someone buried in credit card debt slowing their spending. Laudable, but it doesn't touch the balance.
Do you have any slaves?
The theory is that reduced spending will eventually be surpassed by increased revenue since in a steadily growing population such as the US, the labor market increases by about 100k workers every month...more workers, more revenue...
...we've talked about the deficit balance before and the effects of net interest compared to the effects of interest that is being paid to American debt holders such as intergovernmental agencies and Social Security...the two largest holders of American debt..
From top UT economists James K. Galbraith speech to the deficit commission..
Statement to the Commission on Deficit Reduction
James K. Galbraith, Lloyd M. Bentsen, jr., Chair in Government/Business
Relations, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin
June 30, 2010
...Overwhelmingly, the present deficits are caused by the financial crisis. The financial crisis, the fall in asset (especially housing) values, and withdrawal of bank lending to business and households has meant a sharp decline in economic activity, and therefore a sharp decrease in tax revenues and an increase in automatic payments for unemployment insurance and the like. According to a new IMF staff analysis, fully half of the large increase in budget deficits in major economies around the world is due to collapsing tax revenues, and a further large share to low (often negative) growth in relation to interest payments on existing debt. Less than ten percent is due to increased discretionary public expenditure, as in stimulus packages.
This point is important because it shows that the claim that deficits have resulted from "overspending" is false, both in the United States and abroad.
...With high unemployment, high public deficits are inevitable. The only choice is between an active deficit, incurred by putting people to work or otherwise serving national needs -- such as providing a decent retirement and health care to the aged -- and a passive deficit, incurred because at high unemployment tax revenues necessarily fail to cover public spending. Cutting public spending or raising taxes, now or in the future, by any amount, cannot reduce a deficit due to high unemployment. The only fiscal effect is to convert an active deficit into a passive one -- with disastrous economic and social effects.
...The conclusion to draw from the above argument is that large deficits going forward are likely to have the same source as they do right now: stubbornly high unemployment.
The only way to reduce a deficit caused by unemployment is to reduce unemployment. And this must be done with a substantial component of private financing, which is to say by bank credit, if the public deficit is going to be reduced. This is a fact of accounting. It is not a matter of theory or ideology; it is merely a fact. The only way to grow out of our deficit is to cure the financial crisis.
To cure the financial crisis would require two comprehensive measures. The first is debt restructuring for the entire household sector, to restore private borrowing power. The second is a reconstruction of the banking system, effectively purging the toxic assets from bank balance sheets and also reforming the bank personnel and compensation and other practices that produced the financial crisis in the first place. To repeat: this is the only way to generate deficit-reducing, privately-funded growth and employment.
...The usual "solvency" arguments directed at the Social Security system and at Medicare as separate en ies are in any event complete nonsense. These programs are just programs, like any others, in the Federal Budget, and the Social Security and Medicare "systems" are thus fully solvent so long as the Federal Government is. Further, as explained below, under our monetary arrangements there is no "solvency" issue for the federal government as a whole. The federal government is "solvent" so long as U.S. banks are required to accept US. Government checks -- which is to say so long as there is a Federal authority in the Republic. This point has been demonstrated repeatedly in times of stress, notably during the Civil War and World War II.
...Most informed laymen believe that the Federal government must borrow in order to spend. They believe that the interest rate on Treasury securities is set in a market for government bonds. The markets impose discipline on the government. Thus their idea is that "fiscal responsibility" will produce low long-term interest rates and tolerable borrowing conditions for the federal government, while "irresponsibility" will be punished by higher, and eventually intolerable, debt service costs.
Accepting this view for the moment, what does the present level of long-term interest rates tell us? As I write, thirty year Treasury bonds are yielding just over four percent -- or just a little more than half their yield a decade back. On the argument just given, this must be an extraordinary success of virtuous policy. It seems that Wall Street has made a strong vote of confidence in the fiscal probity of our current policies. This vote is unqualified, backed by money, contingent on nothing. It therefore represents a categorical rejection, by Wall Street itself, of the CBO's doomsday scenarios and all other deficit-scare stories.
On this theory, it follows that the mandate to reduce the primary deficit to zero by 2015 is unnecessary. Such an action can hardly reduce interest rates -- neither short nor long-term -- which are already historically low.
But wait a minute, some may say. Yes interest rates are low at the moment. But bond markets are fickle, they can turn on a dime. And what then?
Yes, it is possible that interest rates could rise. But the problem with this argument is that it takes us away from the premise of rationality. If bond markets are fickle and arbitrary, who is to say what they will do in response to any particular policy? In the face of irrational markets, the sensible policy is to borrow heavily for so long as they are offering a good deal. One may say that all good things end, and perhaps they will. But if markets are irrational, then by construction you cannot prevent this by "good behavior."
The conclusion from this section is that one cannot logically argue that markets insist on deficit reduction. Either the markets are rationally unworried about deficits, or they are acting irrationally right now, in which case they can hardly "insist" on anything.
...We can conclude that there is actually no economic justification for the target of reducing the primary deficit to zero by 2015 or any other date. The right economic objectives are to meet real problems, not those conjured from thin air by economists. Bringing about a rapid end to unemployment, caring properly for an aging population, cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico, coping with our energy insecurity and with climate change are all far more important objectives than reducing a projection of future budget deficits.
Newdeal20You are plainly not equipped by disposition or resources to take on the true cause of deficits now and in the future: the financial crisis. Recommendations based on CBO's unrealistic budget and economic outlooks are destined to collapse in failure. Specifically, if cuts are proposed and enacted in Social Security and Medicare, they will hurt millions, weaken the economy, and the deficits will not decline. It's a lose-lose proposition, with no gainers except a few predatory funds, insurance companies and such who would profit, for some time, from a chaotic private marketplace.
Thus the interesting twist in your situation is that the Republic would be better served by advancing no proposals at all.
Deficit dove. Big whup.Thus the interesting twist in your situation is that the Republic would be better served by advancing no proposals at all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
