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.
To solve the budge problem they should raise taxes on the top %5 to 10% of the earners and increase corporate taxes to make up for the revenue shortfalls coming from lower incomes and higher unemploymnet that where generated by the business and investment decisions coming from the financialization and offshoring of the economy.
If you want to bring money in you have to tax where its at...so the tax system should be become more progressive to make up for the shortfalls. In short, selectively repeal the Bush tax cuts to generate more revenue....
Oh, this should be interesting. Asking 52% of the freeloading population that lives off the backs of the other 48% if they give a rats azz about anyone but themselves or the national debt. Hell, most of them probably can't tie their shoes let alone balance a check book..
I can hear it now..
We can just print money if we need it
I just live debt! I'll vote for him because he gonna pays my mortgage and gas!!
What is debt? Can I smoke it? How much does it sell for in the street?
As long as I can steal it or use my neighbors money who cares
Debts a racist!!
It's all a Debts fault he's as bad as Bush was!
How much debt was accumulated by Cheney and Bush for Iraq war? Will Republicans agree to cuts in massive Defense Budget? The answer lies there!!!!!
Will Republicans agree to cuts in massive Defense Budget? The answer lies there!!!!!
Only for the discretionary budget, since about 50% +/- is in defense.
However, possibly over half of the budget problem comes from entitlements, non-discretionary. So to make fair cuts you have to look at both sides of the budget.
But no one really wants to make these cuts, so the real answer is to increase revenue.
When I see tom price, louie gomhert, pete sessions, mark meadows, and other tea party congressman in the house introduce legislation to roll back medicare, medicaid, social security, and farm subsidies, than i will take them serious when it comes to being deficit hawks.
Most of the debt is the continuation of old policies and the recession.
Obama only signed deficit reductions plans for the plans 4 years.
Then again, you are just a delusional Con who probably thinks Obama is expanding deficits...lmao.
Wow!
It is interesting to hear what liberals actually think.
So you really believe that the increase in debt from $8.6 trillion to $17 trillion (and he has three more years) with the lowest annual deficit DOUBLE the average deficit during the Bush years is "progress"?
It is the same old slight of hand used by the libs- "percentage increases" and "declines in deficits".
If you are drowning in 10 feet of water (given that it raised from 5ft to 10 ft) and the level falls to 9 ft, are you not still drowning? Do you "celebrate" the fall in the water level while you die?
You are sentenced to a 20 lash flogging. The flogging agent decides on his own to double it to 40, yet only completes 35. Do you celebrate the 12.5% decline, or decry the initial doubling of the penalty?
We are in a jam which is the creation of the federal reserve, international bankers, weak politicians, and an idiotic population. This is not going to end well. We are in a situation now in which we actually NEED continued deficit spending to keep money circulating and whole Ponzi scheme intact. Here is how it will probably implode (as it cannot go on forever)
1. payment on servicing the debt achieves 75% of federal revenues. That can come from current very low interest rates simply through more debt acquisition, or an rise in interest rates. There will not be funds available for all of the "treats" that have been promised by the feds. Social unrest unfolds.
2. The US dollar ceases to be the world's reserve currency. Dollars are dumped, and the value of the dollar plummets. This does not excuse us of our bond debt, yet impoverishes the nation with reduced buying power.
3. Inflation rises due to more dollars being pumped into the economy. This as well has the effect of reduced buying power for citizens, lowering our standard of living.
4. States, seeking shelter from massive federal debt, leave the union to avoid the disasterous consequences of being enslaved by past debt, inflation, and currency devaluation.
5. The nation wakes up, grows on the average 20 IQ points, realizes the impending danger and
a. eliminates the Federal Reserve
b. restores spending to congress
c. initiates term limits
d. returns power to the states
e. passes a balanced budget amendment
f. raises a VAT to chip away at current debt
g. raised the social security/medicare eligibility
h. starts domestic energy exploration
Only for the discretionary budget, since about 50% +/- is in defense.
However, possibly over half of the budget problem comes from entitlements, non-discretionary. So to make fair cuts you have to look at both sides of the budget.
But no one really wants to make these cuts, so the real answer is to increase revenue.
I agree with you that making cuts is a problem. then increasing revenue by raising taxes is also not acceptable by people. We need cuts in entitlements, cuts in Medicare, cuts in Food stamps, cuts in Defense Budget and increase in taxes.
I agree with you that making cuts is a problem. then increasing revenue by raising taxes is also not acceptable by people. We need cuts in entitlements, cuts in Medicare, cuts in Food stamps, cuts in Defense Budget and increase in taxes.
Food Stamps is an anti-poverty program that serves 23 million low-income people. Spending on it moves up and down with the economy and unemployment. Cutting SNAP in order to maintain tax-cuts on the upper-brackets seems like Robin Hood in reverse.
Medicare's increased spending is directly related to medical cost increases, which is the same problem private insurance has. I don't see the sense in shifting more costs to seniors, who have limited resources.
Defense cuts are warranted but they have strong lobbyists. We had robust economic activity under Reagan, when the top-rates were 50%. One really can't argue that that rate was a drag on the economy.
Food Stamps is an anti-poverty program that serves 23 million low-income people. Spending on it moves up and down with the economy and unemployment. Cutting SNAP in order to maintain tax-cuts on the upper-brackets seems like Robin Hood in reverse.
Medicare's increased spending is directly related to medical cost increases, which is the same problem private insurance has. I don't see the sense in shifting more costs to seniors, who have limited resources.
Defense cuts are warranted but they have strong lobbyists. We had robust economic activity under Reagan, when the top-rates were 50%. One really can't argue that that rate was a drag on the economy.
So does everybody else. Besides, those seniors a) are not all poor, b) receive more in Medicare benefits than they paid in by a multiple of 3, c) are largely an uproductive drain. In addition, Medicare spending is growing the fastest. We can keep it, just charge seniors an appropriate premium or reform it so that it can't add to the deficit. SS can't run a deficit, the SS benefits are limited to SS tax collections.
Right wingers keep dragging down our great country and then blaming it others.
Just leave and go build your Independence Island.
Oh yeah pal?
Good, we'll leave. Then who are you going to steal money from to keep yourself alive? Where's your job going to come from....making a huge leap of faith that you actually have one?
I would LOVE to leave you useless liberals to your own resources. Now that would be pure entertainment!
Food Stamps is an anti-poverty program that serves 23 million low-income people. Spending on it moves up and down with the economy and unemployment. Cutting SNAP in order to maintain tax-cuts on the upper-brackets seems like Robin Hood in reverse.
Medicare's increased spending is directly related to medical cost increases, which is the same problem private insurance has. I don't see the sense in shifting more costs to seniors, who have limited resources
The tough nut with entitlements is that you have more and more people becoming eligible due to the economic restructring we've been going through, but no revenue to pay for it due to those very same economic changse.... a true fiscal viscous cyle....
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.
Besides, those seniors a) are not all poor, b) receive more in Medicare benefits than they paid in by a multiple of 3, c) are largely an uproductive drain. In addition, Medicare spending is growing the fastest. We can keep it, just charge seniors an appropriate premium or reform it so that it can't add to the deficit. SS can't run a deficit, the SS benefits are limited to SS tax collections.
