Since we have a 14.8 trillion dollar debt there isn't enough money in the country to pay that off so the best way to solve the problem is to grow your way out of this debt
I hope these box thingies work, or this is going to get SERIOUSLY confusing up in here....I would agree that an economic growth would fix our debt problem, but ONLY if we fix our spending problem. You know what they say...people that have more, spend more. And government agencies are set up to make SURE they spend all they receive, no matter if they need it or not. No surplus on the budget. Otherwise, their budget gets cut in following years.
Cutting services? What services are the role of the Federal Govt? Why do we have so many duplicated expenses then at the state level if all those so called services are handled by the Federal Govt. Next we need to explain to everyone what the various taxes go for and then get the Federal Govt. down to the level it belongs, about 1.5 trillion a year not the current 3.7 trillion dollar budget. Take SS off budget and put it back where it belongs, intergovt. holdings and keep it there. Raise the retirement age to 67 and then start repaying the IOU's in that account with the surplus that increased retirement age will generate. I have posted here what the budget would look like but you need to start with 2008 budget and start cutting from there.
When states fail to pay THEIR bills for the services they try to offer, they get that money from the federal government. And also, yes, redundancy is a huge problem. Just as criminals don't like to be tried twice for the same crime, I don't like having to pay twice for the same services. But I'm told we NEED them, lol. And I've been harping about an itemized bill with my tax returns for YEARS. But I'll get one, because I'm sure some of it is a security issue, and some of it is just an eyesore if all the public new about it. Shrinking the federal government? Are you SURE you're a conservative, and not a libertarian, lol? Sadly, any president or congress person who espouses ideas like yours gets bood off the stage, and flouted as a looney, right up there with Rom Paul.
Much of the revenue problem today comes from the fact that there are over 65 million WORKING Americans that are paying ZERO Federal Income taxes because of loopholes and there are another 25 plus million unemployed and under employed Americans paying little if any FIT. That has to be addressed. The way to do that is with a flat tax and a consumption tax. Everybody pays something. That isn't happening today.
I was already under the impression we had a consumption tax, aka, sales tax? As for the flat tax idea, you can't expect someone making 15,000 a year to have to pay 5 grand, or one third of his/her income, in a flat tax. You, and some others would likely say, let that be their incentive to get out and get a better job, but speaking as someone trying to find a job right now, there are not a lot of "better" jobs out there. Employers seem to know they got potential employees by the balls right now, and so are offering lowered wages for the jobs they have available. Case in point, I interviewed, and got accept/hired, for a job about 2 months ago to run/general manage a Friendly's restaurant. No small job. Know what the max was they offered me? 32,000 a year, lol. I told them I had to make at LEAST 45, and they said all incoming store managers make 32,000. I laughed, and left. 2 months later, I am rethinking that move, only, I now hear they filed chapter 11, so am not TOO guilty about it. But anyway, but to my original point...the world needs ditch diggers and burger flippers to, no matter what you or anyone thinks of those jobs, or the people that do them. Not everyone can make the sorta money that would allow them to pay the SAME flat tax everyone else pays. Enter the free rider problem.
Let's go with the spending cuts first, Reagan made a deal with the Democrat controlled House to cut spending $3 for every dollar of tax increases. Guess what we got, the tax increases without spending cuts. GHW Bush tried the same thing and guess what we got, tax increases without the spending cuts. I have no faith in bureaucrats ever cutting anything.
And that is the source of MY anger. I see no difference in the over all way things are run, no matter WHO get's elected in what position. If I didn't have a wife and kids, I'd be the dude with a gun taking aim, that's how angry I am. But I'll never do that, because the fools I am surround by all day support the people I would want to shoot at, and that would be wrong to do. So long as these people have the support of their constituents, they are validated in all that they do.
The answer to that is term limits. I was against them before but this is out of hand. Politicians have figured out that when you keep people dependent you keep the politicians employed. Only in the liberal world do you increase your credit limit and expect politicians not to spend the money.[/QUOTE]
Eh, republicans (so called "conservatives")would spend that money, too. Like I was saying, government is set up to spend all it gets, no matter what. We already have terms limits on some offices, but to me, that is no solution, either. Term limits mean nothing if our only options for replacements are people exactly like the ones leaving. Meet the new boss....