Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  jbrenner 2 years, 10 months ago
    The following is a start on downsizing government to get the deficit under control. It is only a start, because, to pay off a debt, you must first have a budget that has a higher revenue than spending!

    http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/p...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 years, 10 months ago
      Mr Chris Edwards and http://downsizinggovernment.org
      They map out a fairly conservative approach , importantly discussing the shift of capital to the
      Private sector from the inefficient public. The Canadian example is certainly favorable being neighbors yet the USA potential is even greater.
      It seems the fiscal debt tipping point is rapidly approaching.
      Regarding the shift of power from Feds to state and local govt. that was the one of our founding fathers intentions. Can you see anyone in Washington willing to let go of power and return it to the citizens?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 2 years, 10 months ago
      The federal government owns over half the land in the west. The judicious use of a homestead act 2.0 would eliminate the need for much of the welfare system, by giving land to those on welfare, along with training on how to live on one's own; they would have a roof over their heads, and an ability to grow their own food, which would eliminate many programs. For those who won't farm, there should be training in some skilled trades, and in entrepreneurship. If farming communities are being created in the west, many skilled tradesmen will be needed to support those communities. The utility of this approach will be that those who are in this program will immediately learn the core values of capitalism, along with the responsibilities inherent in such a system. This group will cease being a cost center, and will become a profit center. That will also mean that much of the government healthcare meddling will be replaced with private insurance, reducing the drag that medicare and medicaid are having on the economy. Of course, all this must include a law preventing the federal government from creating any more subsidies, welfare schemes and other give-aways that have been cooked up over the decades. That means, NO subsidies (bye, solyndra, ethanol, etc.), welfare, bailouts, etc. The law must specify that the only things the government will fund are the military, the courts and the police. Infrastructure MIGHT be included, especially for interstate commerce, and the postal service. If that's implemented, I believe that the debt can be paid down, and the budget reduced. It may take as long as 5 years to implement, but that's the way to go.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 2 years, 10 months ago
    Not quite yet, at the end of 2008, our debt was $10.05 trillion...

    Looking at the debt levels over history, US debt has doubled every 8 to 10 years. Still, the number is staggering…

    http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebta...

    What I think is more important is our debt to GDP ratio as the last time we were in the 100% range, we were fighting WWII. It’s a stark contrast, it rose from 67% in 2008 to 83% in 2009 and has climbed almost every year until we get to 101% in 2015.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 years, 10 months ago
      Heavy no end in sight debt never worked out well for anyone. Our government is obese and no discipline to sound fiscal policy.
      The feds regulatory Avalanche on businesses , Sarbanes Oxley Act and more is the insatiable govt killing the goose that feeds them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 2 years, 10 months ago
    I think by privatizing, not only would we cut current spending but there is the potential to increase tax revenue in the future. This would be by taxing the new corporation. I think the worker issue would be a net benefit as we would not be paying the current government workers, there may be a small increment due to not paying government wages but still collecting income taxes. It details quite a bit and you know there would be problems implementing the plan, to many people rely on those benefit dollars and there would be the usual law suits and retaliatory actions, potentially causing increased spending.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 2 years, 10 months ago
      Now there is Obama's Legacy in a nutshell Nineteen and a half Trillion and the real possibility of 20 Trillion by Jan 20th. Now there is 20 20 foresight. Add in it's his budget until October First that legacy is a made in the shade certainty.

      Barak Lightning Boy The Destroyer Obama. The President who spent and indebted the country out of existence.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 2 years, 10 months ago
        It’s not just Obama’s Legacy, it’s also the Legacy of the RINO’s like John Boehner, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. These guys should have fought but rolled over… Giving the president a blank check until he leaves office, WTF. The Trans-Pacific Partnership… Kind of makes you wish for Nancy Pelosi again; at least her reasoning was a comedic monologue of dribble, void of reason and logic and provided an expensive comic relief.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 years, 10 months ago
    This issue may have the highest ratio of obviousness of the problem to action taken of any issue I know.
    Obviousness - It can be summarized in one indisputable number.
    Action - There's not much public debate about it. Often the solutions discussed are a drop in the bucket and are treated as potential disasters in an of themselves. We slow the accumulation of new debt by 10%, and people talk about it like it's a huge dangerous step.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 2 years, 10 months ago
    Is that the debt or the distance from here to a far planet?
    The huge numbers beggar the imagination. It's hard, perhaps impossible to wrap your mind around trillions. For most folks, the debt numbers are as unreal as a Disneyland adventure. The stupidity of allowing a debt that enormous is beyond stupid and irresponsible. In Washington, the so-called politicians (weasels are a better name) pay homage to the god of instant gratification and to hell with tomorrow. They adhere to the old British saying, "I'm alright, Jack" and the rest of you can go perform an impossible sexual act.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 2 years, 10 months ago
    The national debt can never be repaid without massive sacrifices by all the people- and that isnt going to be. Our government is bankrupt at this point, and is going to HAVE to repudiate that debt at some point whether it likes it or not. That means admitting that the dollar is worth essentially nothing, along with all the assets denominated in dollars. Talk about a banking collapse? There it is.
    The government will have to issue "new dollars" worth a fraction of the old dollars and they will start down the road of deficit spending again. Its very sad.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Zero 2 years, 10 months ago
    (Big sleepy yawn.)
    (Smack-smack from the slack mouth)
    Huh? Wuts da problm?
    (Eyes narrow.)
    Whatever, dude. Nobody really knows that sh!t anyway.This is boring.
    (Shuffle off.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo