Balancing the budget

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from beKool. Show beKool's posts

    Re: Balancing the budget

    A balanced budget is meaningless and is all political theater .
     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from beKool. Show beKool's posts

    Re: Balancing the budget

    In Response to Re: Balancing the budget:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Balancing the budget : Is that Dick Cheney, Jr. ???
    Posted by Newtster[/QUOTE]

    Nut i mean newt its not my fault you are not bright enough to understand that a so called balanced budget is nothing but accounting tricks in government. And there is no way it can happen in a state or on the federal level anyway. To many unforeseen things could happen , like wars , and natural disasters. But go on nut i mean newt continue being the nobin you are.

    Think about it nut , if these balanced budgets were real why are all these states running deficits  as far back as you can see ? Even Texass used stimulus funds to pay theirs down instead of using it for job creation . 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from beKool. Show beKool's posts

    Re: Balancing the budget

    In Response to Balancing the budget:
    [QUOTE]There is a lot of talk on this board about a balanced budget and living within our means and such. I hear the debate in terms as if though you are on one side or the other and therefore framed as though a disagreement is tantamount to a moral failure or complicity in a massive conspiracy to enslave the unsuspecting public. It's useless to debate in those terms because no rationale person will dispute the general proposition we must have a balanced budget and that we must live within our means and that we should live as free as possible. The issue is how do we arrive at a solution. The way I see it we have a long balloon where if you squeeze on one part you create a bulge somewhere else. Instead of talking about specifics we go off on tangents and demonize our opponents to no good end. Let's take the budget for example and take rough gross figures. We took in $2 Trillion in revenue and spent $3 Trillion. So we are going $1 Trillion in the hole every year. Also in rough numbers the budget is about 1/3 govt expenses and interest, 1/3 defense related and 1/3 entitlements. (I know it's not exact but it's close enough for discussion. The pie charts and graphs will breakout things in categories but somethings these things are actually related. For example 'pensions' is also a defense item but also a general services expense for all employees etc.) Now this means in order to balance---not cut the deficit--to balance you need about 30% in cuts or 30% increase in revenue. The Tea Party has absolutely nixed raising revenue. Okay...so what is left as a choice? You can totally eliminate the military and we balance the budget without decreasing the deficit. However some of our revenue comes from the military industrial complex that employs as many as million workers. What happens when a military contractor goes belly up? We can eliminate medicare and social security and balance the budget without decreasing the deficit. However similarly there is an entire segment of the economy that depends upon that revenue. I can assure you if you cut social security in my section of South Florida there are entire municipalities that would go bankrupt along with thousands of 'early bird' restaurants. We can shut down government altogether and we....well that about as absurd as the first two options. Think about any downtown and what happens if the courthouse and administrative offices close. Sure we save some tax money but in the meantime you may as well have dropped an atomic bomb on the City Center that had a master plan for development and hundreds of businesses that invested millions assuming the city would look a certain way. We can raise revenue by raising the tax rate for middle income folks by doubling the tax payment for average household and we balance the budge without eliminating the deficit. Of course then how do the mortgages get paid? The point of my long discussion here is that every solution creates a new problem. However the good news is that I believe the converse is true. Every problem has a solution. In this case it seems clear to me we can do a less drastic unenjoyable but palatable combination of  all of the above  and balance the budget  and  decrease the debt. We have to take a comprehensive approach and attack every aspect evenly and gradually over a long period. It seems to me this is the only realistic viable option open to us and the government must take this action on a bipartisan non bickering approach and get it done. We'd have some pain and bite the bullet but we would get it done.  So I'd look at something like cutting all programs across the board and raising taxes and think about a plan that projects 25 years in the future. Eventually the economy will rebound and the increased activity will help the revenue side. Reducing the role as world policeman would help. And my GOP friends are right about one thing---teachers and federal employees are going to have to contribute to their pension funds to a larger degree. Basically you end up with a plan where nobody gets this absurd 98% of what they want. Rather they get about 30% of what they want and take the bitter pill but get it done in the interest of the nation. Instead we say Congress playing hardball negotiations and brinksmanship. it was the failure to act like grownups and have exactly that discussion that led to the downgrade in my opinion. It comes down to a personal question. Let's take the average retiree living in the 55+ community on something like $1800/mo or whatever it is and ask ourselves how much do we want to cut. Also a lot of them are on medications that we are subsidizing to the tune of as much as $1000 or more per household. I'm a democrat and I will tell you we must make that cut. I've accepted it.  Now I want to ask my republican friends to take the average VFW veteran who lives on the meager pension they get and ask how much they want to cut. Also will we cut their benefits to the VA hospital? (My stepfather was a 'lifer' E8 Korea/VN vet so I know the reality). This, folks is, as they say on the street, "where we're at'.
    Posted by Yankenstein2[/QUOTE]

    In this case it seems clear to me we can do a less drastic unenjoyable but palatable combination of all of the above and balance the budget and decrease the debt. We have to take a comprehensive approach and attack every aspect evenly and gradually over a long period. It seems to me this is the only realistic viable option open to us and the government must take this action on a bipartisan non bickering approach and get it done. We'd have some pain and bite the bullet but we would get it done. 

    With the exception of the balanced budget myth i agree with all you wrote but with this part the most. It wont happen but we can HOPE FOR CHANGE in congress. Good post yank .
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    Re: Balancing the budget

    A balanced budget is meaningless and is all political theater .


    And yet the Left mentions how Clinton "balanced" the budget every chance they get. I swear beKool can't keep his lies straight.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from bald-predictions. Show bald-predictions's posts

    Re: Balancing the budget

    From Harvard:
     The study was of 21 countries with high national debt.GDP ratio over 100 attempts at debt.deficit reduction from 1970-2007,,

    "We examine the evidence on episodes of large stances in fiscal policy, both in cases of fiscal stimuli and in that of fiscal adjustments in OECD countries from 1970 to 2007. Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases. As for fiscal adjustments, those based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are more likely to reduce deficits and debt over GDP ratios than those based upon tax increases. In addition, adjustments on the spending side rather than on the tax side are less likely to create recessions. We confirm these results with simple regression analysis.www.nber.org/papers/w15438">

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w15438
     & some analysis:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/...-michael-tanner

    We didn't see much of this on the liberal media... wonder why ?? rolleyes
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelldog1. Show kelldog1's posts

    Re: Balancing the budget


     I'VE GOT THE SOLUTION!  ITS SIMPLE REALLY!! 

    EXPAND THE ECONOMY!

    THEN YOU WOULD HAVE LESS NEED FOR ENTITLEMENT SPENDING, INCREASED TAX REVENUES AND NOT ONLY THAT WE COULD INVEST IN AMERICAS FUTURE.

    NAHH...JUST FORGET IT IT MAKES TOO MUCH SENSE!
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     

Share