How to balance the budget in 3 steps

[Conservative]

OK, since the entirety of my very rational arguments have been ignored and I don't want to have to repeat myself to someone unable to comprehend the logic thereof, I'll respond to your current post.

Saying the country was built upon a limited government is a pretty dumb way of addressing our reality. The country was also built on institutionalized bigotry too. Should that have remained our way of doing things? Consider, if you're capable of independent thought, how much every aspect of human culture has changed since the country was founded. This is why conservatives get accused of being delusionoids. They like to pretend that change is unnecessary or avoidable when it's clearly not.

Our country was FAR from perfect at it's founding and the way all of you clown-servatives keep ignoring that is a glaring indication of how ignorant and stagnant your thinking is. Furthermore, to talk about limited government after you guys put a man in the Whitehouse who recognizes NO limit to his authority is comically dumb.

So, why don't you, rather than making saints out of slavers and Christian dominionists, accept that this country is FAR better, in very many ways, than it was at it's founding and moving the country backwards is reckless, ignorant and literally reeks of nostalgia for a pre-human rights era.

Understand, I write these truths with absolutely ZERO hope that you will ever give a **** about making America great, only returning to a dumber, more hateful time.

There is no logic in your argument nor any understanding of the governments we have as you totally ignore state and local that is closest to the people. Because your state won't implement what you want you go to the federal bureaucrats for relief instead of realizing your state has term limits and you can change that state government every four years. Instead you buy what the left tells you and demands federal overreach and social engineering along with the 21 trillion dollar debt you want funded by those evil rich people. You have no understanding of what you ask because the rich can never fund your liberal spending appetite

Your lack of understanding of basic personal responsibility is staggering and a true federal bureaucrat. No understanding of our history or what our Founders created so you buy what you are told. Bigotry was indeed part of the problem but has been addressed. Liberalism had its place but now over steps its responsibilities as we have laws protecting bigotry

Unfortunately that perfect utopia you people want doesn't exist. This group of Progressives are having the same results as the past groups of progressives. when you create dependence you destroy incentive and destruction of incentive creates the economic malaise we had the last 8 years.

People are fighting to get into this country while people like you are tearing it down. There is no movement backwards unless you call instilling personal responsibility into this country moving backwards. You write a lot and say absolutely nothing. You write a lot and ignore the Constitution, basic civics, and history. Research is a foreign concept to you as is an understanding of the concept of neighbor helping neighbor. You are simply civics challenged and totally ignore personal responsibilities and the true role of the state and local governments. You write no truths but rather only opinions

 

[Conservative]

The 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified in 1913. Yet, the last time the United States was debt free was 1835.

So you are now on the Trump 2019 budget bandwagon???

 

[Individual]

The 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified in 1913. Yet, the last time the United States was debt free was 1835.

Correct, and FY1957 was the last time we saw our FY debt decrease, actually 2 consecutive years, FY1956 and FY1957.

 

[Conservative]

Correct, and FY1957 was the last time we saw our FY debt decrease, actually 2 consecutive years, FY1956 and FY1957.

Here is what the radical left wants to ignore and comes directly from Treasury

Reagan debt 1.7 trillion in 8 years
GHW Bush 1.4 Trillion in 4 years
GW Bush 4.9 trillion in 8 years

Total Republican Presidents, 8.0 trillion in 20 years

Clinton 1.4 trillion in 8 years
Obama 9.3 trillion in 8 years

Total 10.7 trillion in 16 years.

Amazing how the Reagan debt of 1.7 trillion is demonized but the Clinton 1.4 trillion was touted and celebrated. Far too many don't understand basic civics and the role of Congress in the process. Congress controls the budgeting process along with the legislation. No President can spend a dime without Congressional Approval. Obama's stimulus of 842 billion dollars wasn't spent in 2009 prior to coming out of recession in June 2009 yet he is touted as bringing us out of recession when the reality is it was TARP that bailed out and recapitalized the banks doing that

https://wallstreetpit.com/13300-what-ended-the-great-recession/

 

[jimbo]

Tell me, what welfare and/or 'payments' do you think illegal aliens now receive?

HINT: it's a trick question.

Free schooling for one. medical for another.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Free schooling for one. medical for another.

Huh. How odd to pretend that's 'welfare'.

And no payments after all, I see.

Well, that's progress. I guess.

 

[jimbo]

Huh. How odd to pretend that's 'welfare'.

And no payments after all, I see.

Well, that's progress. I guess.

If it goes to non citizens, it's welfare.

 

[Individual]

If it goes to non citizens, it's welfare.

There's no doubt that government spending, Federal, State, and local, benefits all people to some degree who are in the U.S.A., regardless of their being a citizen, legal, or illegal occupant.
A government budget, like any, can only be balanced as a result of one thing, spending within the means available.

 

[Conservative]

There's no doubt that government spending, Federal, State, and local, benefits all people to some degree who are in the U.S.A., regardless of their being a citizen, legal, or illegal occupant.
A government budget, like any, can only be balanced as a result of one thing, spending within the means available.

For the longest period I never supported Term Limits but that has changed. The Federal Govt. is out of control and Congressional leaders buy votes by creating dependence which destroys incentive. The left believes all their answers lie with taxing the rich more but never tell how much those evil rich people should pay in federal, state, and local taxes. Logic and common senses shows that the left doesn't possess those qualities as there never is going to be enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite. It is truly a cult attitude and almost as if these people that are so passionate are paid to promote the leftwing ideology none of which truly helps anyone

 

[Media_Truth]

Here is what the radical left wants to ignore and comes directly from Treasury

Reagan debt 1.7 trillion in 8 years
GHW Bush 1.4 Trillion in 4 years
GW Bush 4.9 trillion in 8 years

Total Republican Presidents, 8.0 trillion in 20 years

Clinton 1.4 trillion in 8 years
Obama 9.3 trillion in 8 years

Total 10.7 trillion in 16 years.

Amazing how the Reagan debt of 1.7 trillion is demonized but the Clinton 1.4 trillion was touted and celebrated. Far too many don't understand basic civics and the role of Congress in the process. Congress controls the budgeting process along with the legislation. No President can spend a dime without Congressional Approval. Obama's stimulus of 842 billion dollars wasn't spent in 2009 prior to coming out of recession in June 2009 yet he is touted as bringing us out of recession when the reality is it was TARP that bailed out and recapitalized the banks doing that

https://wallstreetpit.com/13300-what-ended-the-great-recession/

You're proud of these numbers? Trump's deficit will soon be well over $1 Trillion. And if you really want to be honest, you might as well add that Obama debt onto GW Bush, as he executed the worst presidential pass-on since the Great Depression. What blatant dishonesty in every one of your posts.

 

[Conservative]

You're proud of these numbers? Trump's deficit will soon be well over $1 Trillion. And if you really want to be honest, you might as well add that Obama debt onto GW Bush, as he executed the worst presidential pass-on since the Great Depression. What blatant dishonesty in every one of your posts.

What is truly interesting is how Bush sneaked back into the WH and spent money in 2009 without any spending authority and got a 842 billion stimulus bill passed that saw employment go DOWN 4 million by the end of the fiscal year and all this with a Democratic Congress! Don't you ever get tired of being made a fool of by the radical left? Keep cutting and pasting the same lies over and over again, lies that defy civics and the calendar

 

[Media_Truth]

What is truly interesting is how Bush sneaked back into the WH and spent money in 2009 without any spending authority and got a 842 billion stimulus bill passed that saw employment go DOWN 4 million by the end of the fiscal year and all this with a Democratic Congress! Don't you ever get tired of being made a fool of by the radical left? Keep cutting and pasting the same lies over and over again, lies that defy civics and the calendar

More deceptive nonsense from the most biased poster on this forum. Before Obama even put his hand on the Bible, the deficit was approaching $1.4 Trillion.

 

[Conservative]

More deceptive nonsense from the most biased poster on this forum. Before Obama even put his hand on the Bible, the deficit was approaching $1.4 Trillion.

Impossible, fiscal year began on October 1, no budget and no deficit approaching 1.4 trillion dollars, there was a PROJECTED DEFICIT that included TARP but no actual deficit. You are embarrassing yourself

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

A government budget, like any, can only be balanced as a result of one thing, spending within the means available.

No matter how many times people repeat this, it's still a gross oversimplification.

One man's debt is another man's income. That goes for countries, too. The sum of all international trade surpluses and deficits = zero. So if you want the U.S. to run a balanced budget, you aren't just talking about taxing enough to pay for all government spending, you are also talking about the private sector going into enough debt to account for our large trade deficit (foreign savings), and even more debt to account for our own domestic savings. On paper, it is simple. In real life, it is impossible to run a balanced federal budget without a (large) trade surplus. And even then, your surplus is necessarily causing some other country to run a deficit.

Threads about balancing the U.S. federal budget are terribly misguided. In fact, this whole category of threads (Government Spending and Debt) is about 99% nonsense, because people simply do not understand the nature of sovereign "debt."

The Federal Budget is NOT like a Household Budget: Here's Why - Roosevelt Institute

https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2013/mar/26/federal-budget-household-finances-fed

 

[Individual]

It looks like there's not much interest in getting the Federal budget balanced. Neither the rich nor the poor care about the cost of living if government will subsidize/provide the basic necessities of existence.
Without taking control of the purse away from the Federal government, there will never be a balanced budget.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

It looks like there's not much interest in getting the Federal budget balanced. Neither the rich nor the poor care about the cost of living if government will subsidize/provide the basic necessities of existence.
Without taking control of the purse away from the Federal government, there will never be a balanced budget.

Why do you think we need/should have a balanced budget?

 

[Individual]

No matter how many times people repeat this, it's still a gross oversimplification.

Simply stated a FACT.

One man's debt is another man's income. That goes for countries, too. The sum of all international trade surpluses and deficits = zero. So if you want the U.S. to run a balanced budget, you aren't just talking about taxing enough to pay for all government spending, you are also talking about the private sector going into enough debt to account for our large trade deficit (foreign savings), and even more debt to account for our own domestic savings. On paper, it is simple. In real life, it is impossible to run a balanced federal budget without a (large) trade surplus. And even then, your surplus is necessarily causing some other country to run a deficit.

As for trade surpluses/deficits, the U.S. has not experienced a trade surplus since 1975.

Threads about balancing the U.S. federal budget are terribly misguided. In fact, this whole category of threads (Government Spending and Debt) is about 99% nonsense, because people simply do not understand the nature of sovereign "debt."

The Federal Budget is NOT like a Household Budget: Here's Why - Roosevelt Institute

https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2013/mar/26/federal-budget-household-finances-fed

The Federal government was empowered by the Constitution, Article 1, section 8, to 'coin' money, NOT to create money. That changed in 1913 with passage of the Federal Reserve Act.
Federal spending could/would be quickly reduced to the point of a balanced budget IF both the 16th and 17th amendments were repealed as I suggested earlier, eliminating the IRS and many other agencies, ceasing redistribution of taxes to the States, and taxing each State in proportion to the Census enumeration as initially intended by the Constitution. Individual States could/would then be free to tax and borrow as their citizens permit without increasing the debt of the Nation as a whole. Good governance within each State would then be the responsibility of the citizens of each individual State.

 

[Individual]

Why do you think we need/should have a balanced budget?

I can't think of any reason, with the temporary exception of a natural or man made disaster such as war, to NOT maintain a balanced budget.

 

[Conservative]

I can't think of any reason, with the temporary exception of a natural or man made disaster such as war, to NOT maintain a balanced budget.

oh, but you see the liberal solution to all our social and financial problems is raising taxes but only on those evil rich people who then are the solution to every issue. The left never understands growth or how to grow out of debt or better how to cut spending because spending IN THE NAME of compassion makes them feel good yet never solves a problem but does create debt and dependence

 

[Individual]

oh, but you see the liberal solution to all our social and financial problems is raising taxes but only on those evil rich people who then are the solution to every issue. The left never understands growth or how to grow out of debt or better how to cut spending because spending IN THE NAME of compassion makes them feel good yet never solves a problem but does create debt and dependence

The Federal budget should, as I said with rare exceptions, be balanced. Those of us who agree on this should spend our time and effort on determining how this can/should be resolved in a reasonable and rational way. I do maintain that it could only be accomplished by first repealing the 16th and 17th amendments. Reducing the spending of the Federal government would not necessarily reduce total government spending as the States would instead tax their citizens directly, keeping and spending more of their citizens money within the State without any loss as a result of wages, benefits, pensions, and other operating expenses of the Federal agencies and their employees that would be eliminated.
If enough of us agree this is something worth pursuing, then let's start talking about it and ignore those who simply try to disrupt progress or change the topic.

 

[Conservative]

The Federal budget should, as I said with rare exceptions, be balanced. Those of us who agree on this should spend our time and effort on determining how this can/should be resolved in a reasonable and rational way. I do maintain that it could only be accomplished by first repealing the 16th and 17th amendments. Reducing the spending of the Federal government would not necessarily reduce total government spending as the States would instead tax their citizens directly, keeping and spending more of their citizens money within the State without any loss as a result of wages, benefits, pensions, and other operating expenses of the Federal agencies and their employees that would be eliminated.
If enough of us agree this is something worth pursuing, then let's start talking about it and ignore those who simply try to disrupt progress or change the topic.

There is no way that spending cuts alone will do it, you are right, but with a debt this size a combination of spending cuts and economic growth/activity is certainly a step in the right direction.

 

[rickc]

interesting how when democrats are in the white house all debt is bad. deficit spending, raising the debt ceiling and increases in the federal debt are constantly attacked by Republicans

but when a republican is in the white house deficits don't matter, a balanced federal budget isn't good for.America and during the ensuing borrow and spending spree not a word about.the deficit or increases in the federal debt and the debt ceiling is raised very quietly.

look back in history a little and you will see deficit spending goes up with a.republican in the white house and goes down with a democrat in the white house.

 

[Vadinho]

It is absurd to think that we can cut expenses to balance the budget, the nation will not allow for that much spending to be cut. It is also unrealistic to think that raising taxes will cover the delta. Politicians all know this which is why they all say that the answer is to grow the economy and thus the tax base while controlling the growth of spending increases. The left says this sounds reasonable but do it with higher taxes at the top and increase corporate tax rates. The right says the exact opposite, lower taxes and somehow Laffer kicks in down the road. One way of looking at this is percentage of GDP spent and received in tax revenues. Compare that to other nations. We could introduce efficiency or cost savings programs like single payer or negotiated drug prices. We could stop being the policeman of the world but we tried that once and Clinton got pilloried for it by the right wing. One side of the nation wants us to be less aggressive militarily, the other side wants us to be the biggest baddest dude on the planet.

Or just stop worrying about it and use the power of fiat money to spend as much as we demand to give us the lives we expect.

 

[Conservative]

It is absurd to think that we can cut expenses to balance the budget, the nation will not allow for that much spending to be cut. It is also unrealistic to think that raising taxes will cover the delta. Politicians all know this which is why they all say that the answer is to grow the economy and thus the tax base while controlling the growth of spending increases. The left says this sounds reasonable but do it with higher taxes at the top and increase corporate tax rates. The right says the exact opposite, lower taxes and somehow Laffer kicks in down the road. One way of looking at this is percentage of GDP spent and received in tax revenues. Compare that to other nations. We could introduce efficiency or cost savings programs like single payer or negotiated drug prices. We could stop being the policeman of the world but we tried that once and Clinton got pilloried for it by the right wing. One side of the nation wants us to be less aggressive militarily, the other side wants us to be the biggest baddest dude on the planet.

Or just stop worrying about it and use the power of fiat money to spend as much as we demand to give us the lives we expect.

So you think putting 330 million Americans on a Medicare type program creates cost savings? How do you pay for it? Where is the incentive for private business to offer insurance to their employees if the govt. is now offering it? Where is the incentive for doctors to continue to practice medicine? You seem to want that socialist utopia in a country with approximately 330 million Americans, 50 different states with different costs of living. How are things in that dream world of yours?

 

[MTAtech]

It is absurd to think that we can cut expenses to balance the budget, the nation will not allow for that much spending to be cut. It is also unrealistic to think that raising taxes will cover the delta. Politicians all know this which is why they all say that the answer is to grow the economy and thus the tax base while controlling the growth of spending increases. The left says this sounds reasonable but do it with higher taxes at the top and increase corporate tax rates. The right says the exact opposite, lower taxes and somehow Laffer kicks in down the road. One way of looking at this is percentage of GDP spent and received in tax revenues. Compare that to other nations. We could introduce efficiency or cost savings programs like single payer or negotiated drug prices. We could stop being the policeman of the world but we tried that once and Clinton got pilloried for it by the right wing. One side of the nation wants us to be less aggressive militarily, the other side wants us to be the biggest baddest dude on the planet.

Or just stop worrying about it and use the power of fiat money to spend as much as we demand to give us the lives we expect.

Thee vast bulk of federal spending goes to the big five: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and interest on the debt.

The amounts spent on anything else is a rounding error on a rounding error. It's just not what your government does on any significant scale.

So, if you want less spending, either you're talking about cuts in the big five, or you have no idea what you're talking about.