Honestly what would be best is both increasing revenue and decreasing expenditure. The Tea Party is hilarious on insisting on both having a balanced budget and not in anyway increasing tax revenues - to balance the American budget both deep cuts and significant new revenues are going to be required.
Even though it could theoretically be done (fixing the budget solely with cuts), it is almost obvious that more tax revenue will be needed to balance the budget, yes. My huge, massive problem with agreeing with raising taxes to fix the budget, however, is it doesn't fix the budget with the stupid legislators we have. They see it as even more money they can spend, and the budget doesn't get fixed at all, and we wind up with even higher tax rates. That is why I am so against raising taxes, because legislators saying they are doing it to fix our budget are full of shit.
As are legislators claiming that they want to balance the budget entirely without raising any extra revenue. Honestly most of your politicians are full of crock on the economy.
What I'm hearing is that whenever there's a new piece of legislation which includes cuts and tax increases, the plan is done for 10 years. The tax increases are usually front-loaded (i.e. many are effective immediately), while the budget cuts get planned for the last few years of the 10-year period. Later on the budget cuts never actually happen or get drowned in other increases...
Because otherwise it causes politicians problems with getting re-elected when they put in austerity measures I guess (see the wildly unpopular Spanish, Irish (now voted out I think) and Greek governments). All the current debate is really showing is that politicians care more about politics than the economy - I mean the Republicans are blatantly trying to get this debate moved into the election campaign with their six month plan while the Democrats are desperately trying to tide it over to 2013 so it's not in the middle of the election campaign. They're hardly even trying to hide it anymore.
When you factor in the difference in services received, for example Canadians get healthcare and a better education system, it should be clear that the US government is spending far more than the Canadian government to deliver less services at a lower quality; and it becomes a reasonable argument that the Government of the USA is collecting enough revenue for the services it provides and is simply spending too much money to provide those services.
2) The damage, IMHO, has already been done. The main problem here is the feeling of uncertainty and risk associated with the US. Now that we are only a few days away from the deadline, investors are starting to waver. They thought this was going to be a game of chicken where one eventually swerves, but they're seeing that our politicians (the republicans) might not be so rational.
3) It's insane to think that the debt and deficit problem have to be solved immediately. Republicans are proposing a balanced budget amendment (I wonder if that means that the US won't be allowed to run surpluses then), which would mean that the government has to match the loss in revenue from a recession, with spending cuts/tax increases. It'll also mean we have to make, immediate spending cuts, in order to balance the budget NOW. This would hurt our economy, and actually make the debt problems worse, by lowering our GDP (GDP to debt ratio). In fact, with the balanced budget amendment, we'll be seeing an retarded downward cycle of cut, downturn, cut, downturn, cut, downturn, etc.
Some people want to start reducing our debt right now, which would require us to run a surplus. Clearly impossible to do so right now =.=
4) Let's remember how we got here.
We reduced tax revenue by lowering taxes to ridculously low levels in 2000. Socialists like Paul Krugman criticized the Bush tax cuts, since it was going to be reducing revenue and create a large deficit.
The big trigger though, is the recession. With the recession, we had a huge hit to our GDP, and subsequently to our tax revenue. We also had a huge increase in unemployment benefits. This is normal, these are called automatic stabalizers. On top of that, we had the stimulus and bailouts. While both weren't executed perfectly at all IMHO, they were certainly better than nothing.
The main thing we need to do right now, is to help our economy recover. Once we get unemployment and GDP growth to its long term rate, and the EU also settles its problem, then we're in a position to actually start doing contractionary policies.
The main things we need to solve is our health care costs, and our tax revenue. Once we get those 2 done, we're in pretty okay shape.
Galaki said: If you want the government to be profitable, simply tie their income to the gross. If the government makes money, they get higher income.
Two problems
We don't want the government to be massively profitable, we just want there to be a balanced budget. So you should set some limit on that income of theirs, otherwise I sense bad things happening.
Also, even though I hate them, it really isn't fair to have them lose money or make no money in a year where the economy tanks, for example. It isn't always their fault that the economy is going to go down.
Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.
When you factor in the difference in services received, for example Canadians get healthcare and a better education system, it should be clear that the US government is spending far more than the Canadian government to deliver less services at a lower quality; and it becomes a reasonable argument that the Government of the USA is collecting enough revenue for the services it provides and is simply spending too much money to provide those services.
Why do Canadians cross the boarder for our healthcare? Don't Canadians have to be put on a waiting list for their free healthcare?
Why do Canadians cross the boarder for our healthcare? Don't Canadians have to be put on a waiting list for their free healthcare?
As a Canadian I can say that most Canadians don't cross the boarder, but those that do are demonstrating a willingness to pay their own money for improved access to and/or quality healthcare ...
My point had nothing to do with the strategies of healthcare delivery and was entirely focused on the services returned at the level of taxation. If you use Canada (or Australia) as the baseline and look at taxation, government spending and services delivered in the United States it would seem to be reasonable to suggest that taxation rates in the United States are appropriate for the services that are delivered but the amount of money spent to deliver those services is excessive.
Zlejedi said: That's good if that happens it should shift voting into republican side for next few elections which is exactly what USA need.
Through I saw Obama already is trying to shift the blame on republicans.
It's interesting how the debt ceiling is only an issue when the democrats are in charge. This same kind of dirty play was used in 1995 when Gingrich tried to limit the debt ceiling on Clinton. Funny enough, Clinton left with a deficit surplus, and I don't recall any debt ceiling crap like this when dubya was in power, then all of a sudden they have a > 1 trillion defecit when he leaves. You really think that's what America wants again?
Not really. In 2006, every single Democratic senator voted against raising the debt ceiling. Some of them, including Obama, even gave some pretty impassioned speeches as to why it was the wrong thing to do.
Allfreedom99 said: Its frustrating when a lot of things could be prevented if congress and president would get their foot out of their asses and actually make some real spending cuts. Its ludicrous when a country is spending at least 33% more than they are recieving. Then they say, "oh well we will reduce our pile of debt by chunk change each year, but then add on piles more each year that severly outweigh cuts." I think all intelligence has left some of our leaders.
The problem is that Republicans only want to cut on the backs of the poor furthering our debt, this will not solve the problem. Iit will only drive crime up and make people suffer. While the rich are off on there way to the bank laughing there arse off. Wall street is booming right now. The rich are doing great but not passing the buck on. Let the bush tax cuts expire which cater to the rich and corporate power houses. Then shut down both wars, which are the reason we are in this dept. The poor and needy didn't do this, it was bush and his hand outs to the most wealthy upon us and then started 2 wars he didn't plan to pay for. This would cover 50% in just these programs. Then use that saved money and put it into infrastructer, which in turn those workers will be paying taxes and stimalating the ecconomy. Next put tarriffs in place and cut corperate loop-holes and use it to invest in clean energy. BOOM balanced budget.
The problem is some in high place started a movement(tea baggers)which is meant to destroy the middle class. kock brothers started that movement for obvious reasons. When clinton was in office the rich where paying 4% more in federal income taxes. The trickle down effect does not work and it's been proven not to. Reagan started this thought process and the numbers show it has only served the rich and crushed the middle class. The united states most wealthy owned about 7% of the wealth when reagan was in office, now they own about 23%-24% of the wealth. Where do you think the money has shifted, yea thats right. In off shore bank accounts and corperations that use loop holes to completely go around paying taxes.
In the cayman islands there is a building that could house no more then 50 companies but it is used for a tax loop hole and there are 36,000 companies registered to this one address and that is just one. These corperations used to have to pay offshore taxes(Tarriffs) and now it is a free for all. While they use our roads, rails and pollute our cities, while paying for none of that. We do, why do they get a break. I think both sides are bad but Republicans are a mess. Democrates are weak and spinless and give into there bull.
BERNIE SANDERS> now there is a name to be proud off.
First off I respect your frustration, and your view point. However, I do extensively disagree with you on some of your points. First of all you said that, Replublicans want to cut on the backs of the poor furthering our debt. This has been used time and time again by the left claiming that republicans don't care about the poor or the elderly and want them to suffer for the sole purpose of the rich to get richer. While, I don't know the intentions of all people I would suggest that most of them genuinely do care about the poor and elderly, but these statements are demonization and class warfare politics at their worst. Its just fear tactics used by leftists that scare the populace into thinking that republicans only want suffering for the poor and elderly. While, I don't agree with republicans on a number of issues I think more times than not I agree with them more than leftists. I want the excess spending to stop, because we don't have the money to fund everything the way we are.
I probably agree with you in the fact that some executives probably make way too much, but however I do not think politicians have a right to regulate how much they actually make. The more a country regulates the more incentive to work and get promoted is decreased. Less opportunity means less entrepreneurship. This is simple to understand. I agree that there really needs to be tax reform and the loop holes need to be taken out, but to raise taxes on business owners especially in this environment is foolish.
Think about this for a moment. Lets say we have, Fred the executive of a company. He went to college and got an advanced degree. He got hired at a company in a mid level position and worked really hard. His smarts allowed him to save the company lots of money. He made very wise business decisions for the company. He put in more hours than required and made the company more of a success. the leaders of the company took notice and eventually this employee rose to the top and one day became the executive of a now much larger company. This executive began getting paid large amounts for what he did for the booming company. The executive was getting millions a year. With this money the executive was buying new cars, a yacht, a couple mansions, new computers/tvs, elaborate vacations, expensive furniture, a jet, ect. The list goes on.
Some of these executives may be making a lot of money, but with increased money there is huge increases in spending. Where did the materials come from to build the yacht he bought? where did the materials come from to build the jet he bought? Who are the ones that booked his vactions and made sure his room was cleaned when traveling? where did the materials come from to make the furniture he bought? how about for the nice vehicles? What allowed those items to come into the market for the purpose to be purchased? Yes, it came from other businesses and factories who employ the people to build those things. I think this is something that Leftists either fail to realize or just misrepresent for political purposes. If we take more money from the rich then that means less items are being purchased. Less purchases means less demand. Less demand means the companies and businesses that make those items are laying off workers. Therefore we have more unemployed and its the poor that end up suffering in the end with no job! Do you understand this? Or am I hitting cement?
You also sounded one sided when you discussed the hand outs that bush gave. I don't deny he made some crazy spending sprees during his administration, but you also CANNOT uninclude Obama for the hand outs and stimulous packages that he handed out. Do you even realize that Obama has spent more money during his administration than any other president in history even more than Bush within 2 years of Obama's administration!? Im so sick of the leftists spewing out this one sided bull shit! its simply not true. Im also sick of people decairing tea partiers are tea baggers that only want dismay for the United States. Most Tea party members I know want a smaller government that spends less than it takes in with a balanced budget! And 99% of tea partiers I have seen are not racists as the misconception BS keeps being spewed from leftists to stop it! They span all types of people: young, elderly, middle aged, poor, rich, white, black. This rhetoric from leftists is madening and immature.
I agree get rid of many of the tax loops, but to say that just taxing the rich more is going to solve the problems is no solution and only makes it worse by decreasing jobs for the poor. Leftists policies are what make matters worse for the poor and not the other way around.
