( Source: - official government spending statistics )
It's almost 2013, and many politicians are talking about fixing the budget.
The problem is, the Huge gap between income, and expenses can not be closed.
----
2011 tax revenue was $2.3 Trillion.
2011 spending was $3.84 Trillion
2011 new debt was $1.55 Trillion
----
$360 Billion payed on interest on debt
$820 Billion payed to social security
$806 Billion to medial welfare
$654 Billion to other welfare programs
$707 Billion to military spending
----
How do we fix this issue realistically ?
In a real world, ether ALL taxes would have to be raised 41%, or ALL spending has to be decreased by 41%.
Cutting out a couple million here and there, or reducing certain budgets 2% or 3% will never work.
Have any better ideas than I do ?
US Government Will Never Fix It's Financial Problems
step 1: don't pay federal works twice as much for the same job as private sector.
step 2: don't allow congress to vote themselves a pay raise.
step 3: cut the presedients salary in 1/3, or even 1/5(i don't care who's president nearly half a million a year is ridiculous).
step 4: $$$
step 2: don't allow congress to vote themselves a pay raise.
step 3: cut the presedients salary in 1/3, or even 1/5(i don't care who's president nearly half a million a year is ridiculous).
step 4: $$$
The real problem as I see it is lack of growth. The exploitation of fossil fuels as an extremely easy and extremely cheap source of abundant energy fueled the industrial revolution and gave rise to a long period of uninterrupted growth for the US economy. That growth has slowed and, in some sectors, halted or reversed. Yet the size of the government and the size of the population has only continued to increase. In a growing economy, you don't have to raise taxes to get more revenue; you just have to encourage growth, and more revenue will continue to flow.
Under the groaning weight of regulation (largely environmental), however, industrial and manufacturing jobs and trades have been shipped overseas. The US economy is no longer growing, so the only recourse they have is to cut spending or raise taxes. Cutting spending won't happen, as long as the lobbies continue to have such overwhelming power in DC. Raising taxes might happen but won't work; there is only so much blood you can squeeze from a body before the body is dead.
The government needs real stimulus, and not just corrupt billion-dollar handouts to the elite, but real economic stimulus that promotes true growth. Relaxing of regulations, elimination of bureaucracies that strangle enterprise and discourage business, and for Pete's sake stop talking about taking away from the haves and giving to the have-nots who haven't earned. That doesn't promote or encourage business; that actively discourages it. That kind of attitude among the ruling elite creates an environment so hostile toward free enterprise that it's amazing it has been allowed to continue for so long.
Under the groaning weight of regulation (largely environmental), however, industrial and manufacturing jobs and trades have been shipped overseas. The US economy is no longer growing, so the only recourse they have is to cut spending or raise taxes. Cutting spending won't happen, as long as the lobbies continue to have such overwhelming power in DC. Raising taxes might happen but won't work; there is only so much blood you can squeeze from a body before the body is dead.
The government needs real stimulus, and not just corrupt billion-dollar handouts to the elite, but real economic stimulus that promotes true growth. Relaxing of regulations, elimination of bureaucracies that strangle enterprise and discourage business, and for Pete's sake stop talking about taking away from the haves and giving to the have-nots who haven't earned. That doesn't promote or encourage business; that actively discourages it. That kind of attitude among the ruling elite creates an environment so hostile toward free enterprise that it's amazing it has been allowed to continue for so long.
How about letting economists figure out how to balance the economy instead of politicians?
Economists should also be in charge of setting proper tax rates.
How about letting lawyers write new laws, instead of politicians? (Though many politicians are ex-lawyers)
Note: I'm not saying any lawyer or any economist, but a government group of about ~20 economists should set taxes. Likewise, a government group of about ~20 legal experts should write the details of any new laws that Congress wants to implement (so no riders get in).
Congress should say what results the federal government wants, but economists or lawyers or experts in whatever field should be the ones deciding how to best achieve those results.
As it is, you just get politicians promising supporters what they want (in their short-term interest) at the expense of long-term health of the government. Another problem is with every change in president, our long-term plans get tossed out the window and new "long-term" plans get put in place (which will get tossed out the window with the next president). How can we achieve real results (for example), if our entire government is split entirely down the middle in opinions and (both parties) are unwilling to really negotiate?
These are two of the great flaws in democracy:
A) If the people vote directly, they vote in their own short-term interest instead of the best interest of the country. Most people don't even vote for their own long-term interests, if they can have a 1/4th of it right now with immediate gratification.
B) If we rotate our leaders (like we currently do), we succeed in keeping our leaders from significantly abusing their power, at the expense of limiting any real good they can do. We need a leader with absolute legal authority, but with the actual good of the people in mind instead of quid pro quo.
Another thing that bothers me is how people working for large corporations then get high-position jobs in regulatory agencies that regulate the industries they were employed by, and vise-versa - but I digress.
Economists should also be in charge of setting proper tax rates.
How about letting lawyers write new laws, instead of politicians? (Though many politicians are ex-lawyers)
Note: I'm not saying any lawyer or any economist, but a government group of about ~20 economists should set taxes. Likewise, a government group of about ~20 legal experts should write the details of any new laws that Congress wants to implement (so no riders get in).
Congress should say what results the federal government wants, but economists or lawyers or experts in whatever field should be the ones deciding how to best achieve those results.
As it is, you just get politicians promising supporters what they want (in their short-term interest) at the expense of long-term health of the government. Another problem is with every change in president, our long-term plans get tossed out the window and new "long-term" plans get put in place (which will get tossed out the window with the next president). How can we achieve real results (for example), if our entire government is split entirely down the middle in opinions and (both parties) are unwilling to really negotiate?
These are two of the great flaws in democracy:
A) If the people vote directly, they vote in their own short-term interest instead of the best interest of the country. Most people don't even vote for their own long-term interests, if they can have a 1/4th of it right now with immediate gratification.
B) If we rotate our leaders (like we currently do), we succeed in keeping our leaders from significantly abusing their power, at the expense of limiting any real good they can do. We need a leader with absolute legal authority, but with the actual good of the people in mind instead of quid pro quo.
Another thing that bothers me is how people working for large corporations then get high-position jobs in regulatory agencies that regulate the industries they were employed by, and vise-versa - but I digress.
Remove gerrymandering.
This will help the party politics. We can get people who focus on the country first rather than their party first.
People willing to put the country first will have economists help guide policy, instead of party politics deciding policy.
This will help the party politics. We can get people who focus on the country first rather than their party first.
People willing to put the country first will have economists help guide policy, instead of party politics deciding policy.
That's just DOD spending. Total military spending (inc counter terrorism, homeland defense, the portion of NASA's budget used for military equipment, veterans programs, etc) is more like $1.4 trillion.
$707 Billion to military spending
Surely starting a few less wars would be a good start?
How about letting economists figure out how to balance the economy instead of politicians?You can thank Nixon/Thatcher for popularizing the idea that government is a problem of management, so the solution is to fill it with general managers. It hasn't always been this bad.
Reminds me of Neil deGrasse Tyson - "There’s no scientists? Where are the engineers? Where’s the rest of life represented here?".
...don't pay federal works twice as much for the same job as private sector
...The real problem is lack of growth
...Under the groaning weight of regulation (largely environmental)
[/quote]As a non-american, these phrases all sound so stereotypically american. There always seems to be a concern that the free market economy isn't working quite right, and the solution is to always take one more step further down the same path with greater zeal this time.
What I wonder is for how long the world will accept US Dollars for payment for things. In the US(I live here BTW), we can print US Dollars, and so when we need money, we print it, which of course devalues it. And since it no longer has to have gold(or anything else) backing it is is in reality worth less than the paper and ink that was used to print it. At some point, the countries that supply the US will not want dollars anymore, and will instead request "real" payment, in physical goods, or other backup currencies.
At that point, the US is in more trouble. We complain about prices now....wait until our small amounts of consumer goods gets exported in exchange for gasoline(and other things). Things like meat will have skyrocketing prices since there will be less supply due to it being exported. The biggest problem we have related to this is that in general we use much more than we produce, and so it doesn't balance.
The biggest fools are the general populace. They want better education, new roads, welfare, free health care, etc... but all of that costs the government money. And then anytime a tax hike is mentioned, they go nuts. They want the benefits but don't want to earn them.
Don't take that last paragraph as a remark for anybody specific. I live in Texas, USA, and frankly, that is how I see the population here.
At that point, the US is in more trouble. We complain about prices now....wait until our small amounts of consumer goods gets exported in exchange for gasoline(and other things). Things like meat will have skyrocketing prices since there will be less supply due to it being exported. The biggest problem we have related to this is that in general we use much more than we produce, and so it doesn't balance.
The biggest fools are the general populace. They want better education, new roads, welfare, free health care, etc... but all of that costs the government money. And then anytime a tax hike is mentioned, they go nuts. They want the benefits but don't want to earn them.
Don't take that last paragraph as a remark for anybody specific. I live in Texas, USA, and frankly, that is how I see the population here.
I think the problem here is the calling the funding of a war "Defense"... It was purely nepotism on the part of the former president... who was the son of a president who had a beef with Saddam Hussien. If he just went after examining Bin Laden's whereabouts instead of declaring war on Iraq, we wouldn't be in those trillions of debt.
Dubya was paid off by rich arabian sultans or whatever the hell in oil money....
Dubya was paid off by rich arabian sultans or whatever the hell in oil money....
I like Warren Buffet's take:
I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for reelection ... [T]hey're trying to use the incentive now that we're going to blow your brains out, America, in terms of your debt-worthiness over time ... A more effective threat would be just to say, 'If you guys can't get it done, we'll get some other guys to get it done.'[/quote]
By and large US politicians have no stake in the future of the country, so they're free to promise non-sustainable programs for short term political gain. I would like all politicians to be forced to use the public school system and have the majority of their pay be through pensions tied to the success of the country somehow.
To say that there is any single problem to point to would be naive. Income inequality is an issue, but taxing that inequality more won't solve anything. Increasing size of government is an issue, but historically shrinking the size of government has been wildly unpopular when any actual legislation comes up. Government pensions are a huge issue, but even those won't cover enough (to my knowledge they are based off your last year's pay rather than any sort of sustainable pension system). Defense spending is more than it should be, but even it pales in comparison to our mandatory spending. Etc. etc.
I'm very seriously worried about any meaningful budget planning that can happen before the end of the year.
What I wonder is for how long the world will accept US Dollars for payment for things. In the US(I live here BTW), we can print US Dollars, and so when we need money, we print it, which of course devalues it. And since it no longer has to have gold(or anything else) backing it is is in reality worth less than the paper and ink that was used to print it. At some point, the countries that supply the US will not want dollars anymore, and will instead request "real" payment, in physical goods, or other backup currencies.
This would have a much bigger impact than people realize. The USD is the base trading currency for most of the things in the world. The effects of an unstable dollar would be huge on a global scale.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
