So while that "the U.S. does not face an imminent debt crisis' that point will always get closer unless some real measures are taken. That will not happen during Obama's term, when the debt will be $20, and whether his successor can run on cutting and spending remains to be seen. At this point it would seem that only market forces can get US spending under some control. or they will repay their debt through inflationary dollars.
Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq | Alternet
Believe me I can go on we should have never went to Iraq. Bush and Reagan flat out wasted money money fighting War that never there.
"Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
~Orwell, Politics and the English Language
I have no doubt you will try!but I will try.
You are ignoring the other things have been proposed to address the deficit. The president said we will need to change the COLA rate, increase the retirement age over time, and increase the FICA cap. These changes make SS solvent for the long term and not a part of the federal deficit. Then of course, we will have increased revenues coming in as we continue to come out of the great recession, even more so with the increased tax rates for the wealthy. And then there is the tax reform that the Republicans wanted that will generate more income. And finally, upgrading to single payer system will reduce health care costs which is the biggest driver of national debt.Total military spending is 24% of the federal budget spending, so cutting all defense spending would still leave over 1/3 of our deficit.
Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb
You can completely shut down government and send everyone home, including the the POTUS, the SCOTUS and the COTUS, the entire military, the FBI/CIA and Border Patrol and THEN the incoming receipts would cover the obligations of the government as the discretionary spend of the US is only $1.5T
This works in the short-run, as laying off the entire government creates its own recession and revenues dwindle.
When you made a comment:(which was in disagreement)Originally Posted by Bronson
I responded with support for my argument:
I go on to explain why the negative externalities/opportunity cost of large fiscal deficits are minor at best:
To which you repsond:Originally Posted by Kushinator??? Crowding out is the instance where government spending takes money out of capital markets to the tune where private investment is stiffeled! It is not called risk, it is called crowding out private investment. Again, how is it possible to have a coherent discussion with someone who cannot even comprehend the vocabulary associated with their own arguments?!?!?! Crowding out is THE negative externality/opportunity cost of large budgetary deficits.Originally Posted by Bronson
When you discover the ability to have an adult discussion, then by all means.... But what you have put forth so far is... well, rather embarrassing.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911