By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
akuma587 said:

Cause they produce coal.

@ stickball:

That's totally fair, but there is no way to address the national debt unless the problem is addressed on both fronts. We have to substantially raise taxes and substantially cut spending. That is all I am saying. And I don't think there is really any argument that can be made for an alternative considering the size of our national debt.

And I agree with you that people in government are too willing to spend money they don't have (both Democrats and Republicans). But it is also true that some are willing to cut taxes even while we are running major deficits. Sometimes it is justified (like under Reagan, though even Reagan raised a lot taxes a few years later, but don't tell conservatives that), and sometimes it is not (Bush Jr. for instance).

For the most part, the spending situation should be addressed in this order

1) Entitlements (especially Medicare, the Social Security problem is actually much easier to fix)
2) Military Spending
3) Revamping the tax code
4) Pet projects (farm subsidies comes to mind)
5) Overhauling government departments on many levels

But in all reality this country is so big that it really isn't realistic to expect the federal government to spend much less than $2.5-3 trillion considering that the population grows yearly, and when you consider natural inflation. I mean $1 trillion in 1975 (which we were already spending) would be around $4 trillion in today's dollars.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

What cost $1000000000000 in 1975 would cost $3959022166696.21 in 2008.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2008 and 1975,
they would cost you $1000000000000 and $240317097222.62 respectively.

Do you want to do another calculation?


But you know what one of the biggest differences between then and now was? Tax rates.

This looks like a well thought out post. I agree.