Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
]anytime there is a deficit there is no such thing as a balanced budget.[/b] give me the budget and I could have the deficit paid off in 3 years and have the USA's budget under 500 billion a year total.
my point was, is that no elected politician has no interest at all in having no deficit and no balanced budget. if they did, there would be no deficit, and there would be a balanced budget every year in the USA.
Fortunately for Canada, they didn't have to be under the leadership of George Bush. 8 horrific years the US suffered through and what emerged was recognition that one of the major political parties in the US (Republicans) are clueless, ineffective, and divisive.
One still wonders however why Canada is not further along.
Fortunately for Canada, they didn't have to be under the leadership of George Bush. 8 horrific years the US suffered through and what emerged was recognition that one of the major political parties in the US (Republicans) are clueless, ineffective, and divisive.
One still wonders however why Canada is not further along.
One could also say, lucky for Canada, they are not under the leadership of Obama...
They have to do more than balance a budget, we have to pay the national debt.
Draconian cuts are going to have to come no matter what.
The longer we don't do it the worse it will be when we do.
I think it is more like lots of months at most rather than years before we are FORCED to change our ways.
Yes, there has to be some serious cuts made to spending and no one has the courage to get it done.
It's really no different than a household budget. Certain amounts of money are allocated.
That's easily enough accomplished for military, roads and highways but when it comes to the social programs, that isn't how it's done. There aren't X amount of dollars for welfare programs, the spending is determined by how many choose to be added to the programs. Welfare mothers can all decide to have more children, more people get added to the SSI rolls, and any number of people can cross the border and give birth and be added.
my point was, is that no elected politician has no interest at all in having no deficit and no balanced budget. if they did, there would be no deficit, and there would be a balanced budget every year in the USA.
It's not in their interest because it's not politically feasible to engage in budget cuts. "Targetted spending, diffused cost" is well-proven political strategy and any politician who is serious about reelection will keep spending to please interest groups and send the bills on everybody.
Liberals of Canada managed to cut the deficit is because they had an open field and virtually no opposition for a long time. The right was disorganized and divided into different parties, the Bloc snatched Quebec seats that were conservatives in the last elections and other parties of the left were marginal at best.
IMO, this is the only reason why Canada is the only G8 country who managed to produce budget surplus. Because it was politically feasible to do so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Canada Benefited from not having Bush
