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.
Washington hasn’t seriously uttered the words “balanced budget” in years. Lawmakers now focus on trimming the budget deficit, which has soared to $1.3 trillion under President Obama...
Stop blaming President Obama, and consider the thought process from the folks in Washington on balanced budget in 2001. It is why we're in a mess and looking up, again.
Who says the Federal government needs to balance the budget? People make it seem like the country needs to run its finances like a household. That viewpoint is not only wrong it is bad for economic growth.
If we aren't going to balance the budget then why not just say f*** it and just print up $10 trillion and start handing it out to the poor?
Well, currently we print trillions and give it to a cartel of banks, by design. That's part of the reason our economy is so screwed up.
But to answer your question, we shouldn't just give it to the poor, because it is more than just the poor who are deserving of the seigniorage from currency production. In my view , the currency needs to decrease slightly in value over time, therefore new money does need to be created routinely to facilitate economic growth. The issue is that this new money that is created should NOT be doled out just at the very tip-top of society, like we do today.
We should :
a. Stop lending money from the Fed, to banks.
b. Start doing like you say: print money and give it directly to U.S. citizens. Several ideas come to mind, like eliminating payroll taxes, issuing a national dividend check to all citizens.
Stop blaming President Obama, and consider the thought process from the folks in Washington on balanced budget in 2001. It is why we're in a mess and looking up, again.
Taxes have been on a downward trend since the 80's unfortunately they haven't reduced spending to make up for the difference. They should have at least raised taxes to pay for the wars back in 2003, moving the wars off budget made no sense, did they not exist. No congressman is going to cut anything meaningful from the budget because it might cause them to lose teh next election.
No one wants to touch social security or medicare either so where are the spending cuts coming from that will balance the budget.
I've been saving for retirement since I got out of college with plan that I will get absolutely nothing from the federal government when I retire. If these plans are still around, I've paid into them and I'd like a little back. If they aren't then either we are completely bankrupt or they were finally determined to be unconstitutional like they really are.
Well, currently we print trillions and give it to a cartel of banks, by design. That's part of the reason our economy is so screwed up.
But to answer your question, we shouldn't just give it to the poor, because it is more than just the poor who are deserving of the seigniorage from currency production. In my view , the currency needs to decrease slightly in value over time, therefore new money does need to be created routinely to facilitate economic growth. The issue is that this new money that is created should NOT be doled out just at the very tip-top of society, like we do today.
We should :
a. Stop lending money from the Fed, to banks.
b. Start doing like you say: print money and give it directly to U.S. citizens. Several ideas come to mind, like eliminating payroll taxes, issuing a national dividend check to all citizens.
I agree with that part for sure. A combination of tax increases and spending cuts have to be agreed upon. I would be very careful in how much we cut, from where and how fast though - you only have to look to Britain to see the damage that cutting too much too fast has had on the British economy. In fact the British prime minister has seriously damaged economic growth for a long time because of his obsession with balancing the budget. Industry has also been ruinied for a generation - parts of the IT industry as one example.
Neither party are making much sense when discussing the deficit at the moment - Obama's plan to raise the tax threshold or to make millionairs pay 30% still doesn't increase revenue because it doesn't close the loopholes and deductions that lowers actual tax revenue. Corporate tax in the US is high but that doesn't mean that corporations pay a high tax - some billion dollar companies paid nothing in taxes last year. The republicans are on another planet if they think that reducing taxes and cutting spending are going to do any good. The republican candidates tax policies will only increase the problem, not solve it.
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.
