• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you believe we will ever have a balanced budget again?

Do you believe we will ever have a balanced budget again?

  • Total voters
    31
Nilly said:
How can we declare national bankruptcy when we have a fed reserve?
Click to expand...

Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned bank.
/
 
radcen said:
Do you believe we will ever have a balanced budget again?
Click to expand...

A balanced budget isn't necessarily a good thing just to be clear; you don't run them in times of economic recession as they're counterproductive vis a vis the alternatives, and you want surpluses during the boom times to run stimulative deficits during the bad; the fetishizing of BBs is unhelpful to sober economic discourse.

As to the question itself, never is a very long time so yes, probably. Will it be in my lifetime? No idea.
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
So? It was created by Congress.

US debt is denominated in US$.
Click to expand...

That would be Federal Reserve CORPORATION. Just give me the names of the stockholders, please. Simple enough, eh?

/
 
radcen said:
Do you believe we will ever have a balanced budget again?
Click to expand...

Tax cuts are popular, and spending cuts are not.

Therefore, no, we will never have a balanced budget. Have we ever had one?
 
radcen said:
Do you believe we will ever have a balanced budget again?
Click to expand...

No, not in real terms where our national debt goes down. Perhaps that is a surplus and not a balanced budget. But there are so many things congress puts off budget, having a balanced budget would still mean we are spending a lot more than what we are taking in. Way too many gimmicks.

I don't care what the budget figures are or how it is portrayed. Bottom line for me, if our national debt goes up, then we didn't have a balanced budget. Let congress play with their gimmicks and trickery to keep certain items off budget, just watch the debt figures.
 
Moon said:
Not so long as so many people believe that every taxpayer dollar spent by the government is sacred and cannot be reduced by even a single penny or billions of people will die.
Click to expand...

And idiots stop giving away trillions to bilionaires and phony patriot cowards stop supporting pissing away money bombing and killing brown people all over the world
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Raise taxes.
Click to expand...

on who

how much?

lets say we raise taxes on ALL personal income over 250k to 70%....do you think that would be enough? do you know enough about federal income to answer that question? What do you think those people would do to counter such high rates?

Let me answer it for you....it still wouldnt be enough

so now what?

corporate rates?

who else we raising major taxes on?
 
gdgyva said:
on who

how much?

lets say we raise taxes on ALL personal income over 250k to 70%....do you think that would be enough? do you know enough about federal income to answer that question? What do you think those people would do to counter such high rates?

Let me answer it for you....it still wouldnt be enough

so now what?

corporate rates?

who else we raising major taxes on?
Click to expand...

Simply saying "raise taxes" is so vague. It may help balance the budget, but due to how vague the statement is, it's hard to figure out the exact plan Unitedwestland13 has for us.
BTW, how would you go about making a balanced budget again, or do you think it's impossible?
 
Soopairik said:
Simply saying "raise taxes" is so vague. It may help balance the budget, but due to how vague the statement is, it's hard to figure out the exact plan Unitedwestland13 has for us.
BTW, how would you go about making a balanced budget again, or do you think it's impossible?
Click to expand...

not impossible....but very hard

we have to look at the 3 gorillas in the room

it is no use even talking unless we can discuss ALL options

for medicare and social security....i would bump up the max contributions (i think the cutoff is around 125-130k right now)

make it 500k....but leave the maximum benefit alone....that would be # 1 (raises a lot of taxes without any outflow)

number #2....i would tell anyone under 35-40 that their social security age just got bumped to 65 minimum not 62

and the 3 payouts would be at 65/70/75 for the increasing percentages (that helps later, but not now)

We have to raise the ages....as we live longer, the payouts just keep rising

defense...i would cut our budget in half....close every base around the world and get out of NATO

let every other country find out how hard it is to build, keep, and maintain a defense that is protecting their ass

and if the powers to be dont want that to happen, i want payments from every country we protect....let them start actually footing the bill for what they are getting....anyone that doesnt want to pay, well they are on their own

i figure we can get 100 billion a year easily from other countries....or become more isolationist

i would have to see the numbers after these....it wouldnt balance things, but would get us closer....then we start going through each department...cutting the waste and crap we dont need

i figure we can entirely cut a few departments and move essential things from them to other departments

its a start
 
radcen said:
Do you believe we will ever have a balanced budget again?
Click to expand...

Yes it will happen under Trump leadership. It has to do with growing the economy. A growing economy not only means more tax revenue but more wealth in the hands of people. For example, the $5 trillion in wealth created by the stock market, last year, with respect to pensions and retirement savings, means less need for future government expenses, to compensate for the elderly, while still ending with the same level of services. It is a two for one.

It also means more jobs, which then reduces welfare expenses. Without job you have to pay unemployment which raises outlays. With jobs, the unemployment benefited is reduced, plus new tax revenues appear, for another two for one affect. Recently, Apple announced a huge investment in America. It is bringing its offshore money back and using this to reinvest. This has an attached one time 15% tax, which increases the tax revenue; a two for one. Big government does not turn a profit, so it never gets a two for one. The smart person uses the two for one to double the impact; private sector growth.

Reduce the size of Government:

If you ever worked for government, it is designed for emergency conditions. All the extra manpower and redundancy and all the red tape and paper pushing is connected to the chain of command needed to address all types of emergency contingencies. Unfortunately, the government is rarely in a worse case emergency mode. The result is you end up with a large standing army, sitting on their hand or standing around. This results in to much time on the government worker hands. One result in the need of filler work, such as red tape and redundancy, that does harm to the original mission, since it slows response time. If soldiers have to sweep the floor and filling out forms, this is not making them better warriors.

Another result is employee atrophy, due to little emergency action, so when emergencies arise, the immediate response is sluggish. It will speed up, but not right away. The other affect of too much time, and too many people standing around, is politics. Idle time is the Devil's playground. The political minded come out of the woodwork. Politics is less about the needs of the practical talent for the mission, and more about bull crap for personal career ambition. Had decisions that might be needed in war are avoided buy the politics of peacetime. With peacetime, the result is the chain of command is not optimized to the original mission of emergencies, which is the main reason for the cast of millions. Dysfunction will start to appear.

It is not easy to trim government because the labor force is designed for the emergency template. What makes it harder is the peacetime inversion of talent and decisions, due to politics, Peacetime leadership is often out for itself or for smaller groups, and not for the primary emergency mission. If you are a political hack from one party, you don't see the bigger mission, which is designed to protect even the other party. That is peacetime hackery, which could be minimized with fewer people.

What Trump has done is remove regulations, so there is less subjective perception of emergency. Adding too much regulation is a political hack trick, to increase the size of government, via the subjective perception of new emergencies. This allows more people standing around waiting for the attack of the giant ants. In the mean time, the peacetime chain of command grows, but not for the sake of the bigger mission. One way to help balance the budget, via government, is to define only real threats and real emergencies, and trim all the political stunt emergencies designed by peacetime politics.
 
Last edited:
Not with the recently passed Trump/GOP revenue-killer tax bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom