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.
The deficit is pretty much made up of equal parts deficit we had before the meltdown, reduced tax revenues due to the economy and increased spending that is due to more people being on unemployment, taking social security, etc.
It's not as if lawmakers have passed bills that spend more, there's just more poor people and they are using more of the programs that were already there. Uneducated people don't really get that.
In reality, there's not much you can cut. Between the sacred cows like SS, interest, military, etc, there's not much left.
You forgot the massive increases in 2010 budget outlays to Agencies. For instance the FDA got a 19.8% increase from 2009 to 2010. The previous increases were in the 4% range.
And once again, it was government intervention in the economy (via Fanny and Freddy) that was the cause of the economic collapse of 2008 and the cause of the coming depression. The only very strong regulation that I am in favor of, and most libertarians, is regulating the banking "industry" which is not a legitimate industry if it makes fraudulent transactions that it can't honor. Bernie Madoff went to prison for doing just that.
And of course, eliminating the Federal Reserve which is the center piece of the fractional-reserve system. If not eliminating it, but force it to stop money pumping when a bank lends out more money than it has in deposits and force banks to have $1 on deposit for every $1 they lend out. The Ponzi scheme that is central banking and derivatives scams will end.
And once again, it was government intervention in the economy (via Fanny and Freddy) that was the cause of the economic collapse of 2008 and the cause of the coming depression. The only very strong regulation that I am in favor of, and most libertarians, is regulating the banking "industry" which is not a legitimate industry if it makes fraudulent transactions that it can't honor. Bernie Madoff went to prison for doing just that.
And of course, eliminating the Federal Reserve which is the center piece of the fractional-reserve system. If not eliminating it, but force it to stop money pumping when a bank lends out more money than it has in deposits and force banks to have $1 on deposit for every $1 they lend out. The Ponzi scheme that is central banking and derivatives scams will end.
It's all a big ponzie scheme. Move assets off one balance sheet and add it to another then the one with the "hot potatoe" does the same and on and on it goes. Fed prints money like mad to keep up with it all and the wealth of the US is just slowly swirling down the toilet. Yeah and they make Madoff the bad guy.
It's all a big ponzie scheme. Move assets off one balance sheet and add it to another then the one with the "hot potatoe" does the same and on and on it goes. Fed prints money like mad to keep up with it all and the wealth of the US is just slowly swirling down the toilet. Yeah and they make Madoff the bad guy.
And all this private debt with digital money created out of thin air, no one realizes that the banks are in debt with about $1.5 quadrillion. Imagine the Fed having to print that money so that the banks actually have that capital on hand to lend. There isn't that money. Fractional-reserve needs to end and the CEOs of JP/Chase, BoA, Citi, and others need to share cells with Bernie Madoff.
Making wacko "suggestions" that no one takes seriously hardly qualifies as "drawing a line in the sand". It's more like drawing a purple dinosaur in his coloring book and pretending it's real...
We might have something there if we start with inflation and population growth adjusted spending rolled back to the last year we balanced the budget (2001). Spending that year in constant 2005 dollars was $2,073bn and the US population has increased about 8% since then. Increasing our 2001 spending level by 8% gives us $2,239bn in constant 2005 dollars. Estimated revenue for 2011 is $1,902bn leaving a shortfall of $339bn. If we only increase taxes on the top 1% of all tax payers, they will have to pony up about $110,000 each to cover their half of the bill.
If however we start with the current spending level of $3,341bn (constant 2005 dollars) and split the deficit difference between tax increases and spending cuts, the top 1% of tax payers will have to pony up an additional $464,323.
In 2009, (the last year I have stats) the top 1% of income earners averaged $508,387 in annual gross earnings.
Obviously we have a problem.
We're not going to get there by hitting the top 1% for half the current deficit, and since income falls off exponentially as we move down the scale, getting to that number while taking such a timid approach to cutting spending could mean dramatically increasing taxes on a lot of people besides the very wealthy.
Taking the same current deficit and paying for it with spending cuts of two dollars for every dollar of new taxes seems a wiser approach. The $464,323 we have to cover becomes $309,548, and as we spread it out over the lower income groups we won't have to hit them quite as hard.
Having said that, I see no reason spending cannot be rolled back to the inflation adjusted level of spending we had in 1996. Cut out the turtle bridges and cowboy poetry festivals, and we'll be much closer to a balanced budget without raising taxes.
We might have something there if we start with inflation and population growth adjusted spending rolled back to the last year we balanced the budget (2001). Spending that year in constant 2005 dollars was $2,073bn and the US population has increased about 8% since then. Increasing our 2001 spending level by 8% gives us $2,239bn in constant 2005 dollars. Estimated revenue for 2011 is $1,902bn leaving a shortfall of $339bn. If we only increase taxes on the top 1% of all tax payers, they will have to pony up about $110,000 each to cover their half of the bill.
If however we start with the current spending level of $3,341bn (constant 2005 dollars) and split the deficit difference between tax increases and spending cuts, the top 1% of tax payers will have to pony up an additional $464,323.
In 2009, (the last year I have stats) the top 1% of income earners averaged $508,387 in annual gross earnings.
Obviously we have a problem.
We're not going to get there by hitting the top 1% for half the current deficit, and since income falls off exponentially as we move down the scale, getting to that number while taking such a timid approach to cutting spending could mean dramatically increasing taxes on a lot of people besides the very wealthy.
Taking the same current deficit and paying for it with spending cuts of two dollars for every dollar of new taxes seems a wiser approach. The $464,323 we have to cover becomes $309,548, and as we spread it out over the lower income groups we won't have to hit them as quite as hard.
Having said that, I see no reason spending cannot be rolled back to the inflation adjusted level of spending we had in 1996. Cut out the turtle bridges and cowboy poetry festivals, and we'll be much closer to a balanced budget without raising taxes.
Wow, that was a pretty thoughtful response. Thanks! (no sarcasm btw...)
And all this private debt with digital money created out of thin air, no one realizes that the banks are in debt with about $1.5 quadrillion. Imagine the Fed having to print that money so that the banks actually have that capital on hand to lend. There isn't that money. Fractional-reserve needs to end and the CEOs of JP/Chase, BoA, Citi, and others need to share cells with Bernie Madoff.
Littly Timmy would have to get him a new printer or two for that. Maybe that's why he was talking about stepping down? HP told him his account was overdue and wouldn't ship him anymore printers? lol
Don't you need a budget to know what is in it and items that need 'cutting'? Bernies democrats in majority have not passed a budget bill in over 800 days.
So with the non budget, how does the EPA get a 125% increase of tax payer dollars in 2 years?
And if you confiscated every dollar from every 'wealthy' person, it wouldn't come anywhere near covering the $4 Trillion dollars that you added to the National Debt in the last 3 years.
Do you really think Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would allow the GOP to do something as radical and off the wall as cut spending back to 2009 levels???
Children and old people all across America would drop dead if we did something so drastic and outlandish!!!
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.
