"The problem with a balanced budget is that the money supply needs to increase each year in order to keep the value of the dollar stable. "
Central banks can increase/decrease the money supply without regard to federal borrowing. Fiscal policy and monetary policy are separate things.

I give up on the rinos. These people are idiots. How hard is it to figure out what will sell, and get it done?

I used to think Rand Paul was a Libertarian, but now see he is an egotistical, zeal-idiot. Rather than support "better", he waits for "best", while "worst" succeeds. This is why Libertarians are marginalized.

The problem with a balanced budget is that the money supply needs to increase each year in order to keep the value of the dollar stable. Under a gold standard, the government provides a mechanism for this necessary increase in the money supply: turning gold bullion into coins. Each gold coin minted increases the amount of money in circulation without impacting the federal budget. In a fiat money system, however, the amount of money in circulation at any time is tied to the government’s accumulated budget deficit.

If the U.S. government begins balancing its budget, it will issue no new money. Therefore the money supply will remain constant while the amount of goods and services increases. This means that the value of each dollar will increase relative to the amount of goods and services it can buy. This may appear to be a good thing compared to the opposite situation we face today, but it isn’t. Freezing the currency in place would favor creditors over debtors, who would be forced to pay back their debts in appreciating dollars as their nominal wages were being forced down. Such a situation could not be maintained for very long in today’s political climate.

If the goal is a stable unit of account and medium of exchange, one which neither appreciates nor depreciates, the growth rate of the money supply must approximate the growth rate of goods and services in the economy. In a fiat economy, this means that the federal government must spend more money than it receives in taxes. But the government does not have to go further into debt to do so, it can simply “print” enough money to cover the deficit. The inflationary effect, if any, will be the same in either case.

Now we are in complete agreement!

Along with all the Democrats. I think they should try to repeal Obamacare piecemeal, starting with the most unpopular features. If there was an up-or-down vote on the "individual mandate" by itself, I think a few Democrats would crack. And the Republicans would have a ready-made issue against those Democrats that voted to retain it.

The deficit and the debt are two separate issues. Our money doesn't have to be "backed" by debt that we are forced to pay interest on.

The problem with "tax reform" is that it never gets adequately discussed. The media only reports what the effect will be on different classes of taxpayers, without considering how the tax burden should be fairly allocated.

Exactly. Notax, notax, notax on productivity. Nibbling around the edges will not have any significant effect. We are enslaved because the federal government takes our production before we can put it to use rationally. Power corrupts and the income tax (and any replacement for it) supports that corruption.

We are all serfs to our rulers in DC. Why we allow them to get away with overspending in absurd. If Trump were allowed to do the budget it is my opinion that he would slash the spending by 10% a year for at least 4 years and put us into a surplus. As for the spending by government that would be saved by these cuts, the fat is something that we should not have to pay for. How many times have you heard the comment, "Close enough for government work"? Well it's time for someone to account for these freeloaders in cushy, do-nothing jobs and be out on the street. Plenty of room for cuts, each department should realize that they could be shut down unless they are giving real value for their work and not a lifetime mealticket.

No it does not. The AMT is responsible for the upper middle class paying a majority of the national taxes. The AMT only increases the taxes we pay, and continues to keep the voting pressure off the government to lower spending.

Cutting off loopholes if fine with me, if the basis is consistent. Using a rule designed to close loopholes 50 years ago on the top 100 people to enslave a low number of high earning workers to pay a majority is not appropriate, objectively consistent or in any interest of controlling government spending. If they want to close loopholes (which they really don't want to do, because they are the power of the devil), the "alternative minimum rate" needs to be referenced to some middling value, not a cutoff of deductions at that earning level.

I can only assume you never got hit with it, and wondered how you could be paying more than twice the national average income in taxes. I for one, am unbelievably pleased that I might actually make more than some of the people that work for me now, or my peers whose wives stay at home, spend and primp.

Anything else on this subject?

Loopholes in the tax code are the result of special interests' lobbying. The AMT limits the damage that they do.

if we are getting a tax cut why do we have to pay something for it?

Sorry, that was last year's number, straight off of Wikipedia.

"is to cut the budget by 1% from the previous year,"
That would be great. If we just froze spending at the same levels, the problem would melt away to growth and inflation. People in gov't consider even that to be a radical "cut".

Well said.

One minor correction, the total current debt has passed $20 Trillion and Congress is looking to authorize another bump in the debt ceiling...

Ultimately, we are paying people to vote Liberal.
We've given them "entitlements", free everything, tax-exempt statuses, free education, now free or subsidized medical care, government jobs, and very good pensions. There's some military money in there too. And of course, the interest on the $14 trillion National Debt, which foreign governments and the big banks just love.
The new US motto should be engraved on the Statue of Liberty: "Come get yo FREEEE money!"

Taxation for redistribution purposes is theft, yes. Taxation for legitimate purposes (ie agreed upon by the taxpayers) such as common defense, basic administration, etc. is not.

I agree that in general, however, the government is just out to take more and more from our pocketbooks.

Except for the RINOs it was done.

Using the 2016 spending and deficit and assuming a 1% decrease in spending with a 2% increase in tax receipts every year, it would take until 2022 to balance the budget while the total debt would climb by an additional $2 Trillion #. While it is a notable goal and an interesting proposal, it relies on several key assumptions:

1. Increase in tax receipts. This happens when businesses and populations are growing. 2% wouldn't be a hard target to make if taxes are cut to spur business growth.
2. Decrease in spending. This will only be possible if Congress is willing to make it happen. Both Democrats and Republicans have become drunk on easy spending and unlimited borrowing.
3. Relatively stable interest rates. If interest rates increase too quickly, tax revenue can drop dramatically as consumers spend less and businesses have slimmer margins. Increasing interest rates also increase the debt service burden and lengthens the balancing time.
4. Entitlement spending is set to increase at a rate which far outstrips the growth in tax revenue and because they are mandatory programs, funding comes before other discretionary funding. Thus outside of this proposal, a secondary law would of necessity be passed capping or revising entitlement spending.

If the plan were actually held to and the surplus went exclusively to debt service (and assuming nothing else changes), the debt would be retired in 2041. ^

# Note that the same projections show that an increase in receipts of only +1% each year drags out the balancing until 2025. This should be noted to show the power of compound interest and that (contrary to Democrats assertions), we do not have a revenue problem or a "paying-for problem", we have a spending problem.

^. Note that the same projections showing an increase in receipts of only +1% each year drags out the debt retirement date to 2049.

Well said.

I always like the Sean Hannity budget solution: implement a 1% rule, which is to cut the budget by 1% from the previous year, each year until the budget is balanced, with no new taxes.

I would propose they stop all spending on the Affordable Care Act and kill the albatross.

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools...

Wanna try again?

Your first and last statements need support, which will be difficult since they are false.

Tax cuts do not need to be “paid for”, taxes need to be cut PERIOD. The only way we can accomplish this while dealing with a $20 trillion national debt is to gradually replace debt-based money with debt-free money. The inflationary impact of unbacked dollars is no different than the inflationary impact of the same amount of debt-backed dollars, and such a policy will call a halt to the increase in the national debt and its crushing $430 billion in annual interest payments. See www.fixourmoney.com .