Deficits: Should we?

Hello

To take care of the deficits problem: Should we

1. Raise taxes on the rich to pre reagan levels (we didnt run big deficits till reagan)

2. Cut Military spending

3. Cut things like education and infrastructure and social security

and why

 

I say cut military spending.

 

Who the hell voted to cut education?

 

1 and 2 would be great. But its wierd because in congress cutting funding from the military is like some wierd taboo.

 

The Pentagon budget is about half the federal budget. Talking about curbing the budget without touching the 'defense' spending is absurd. What's more, the US is allied with every nation on Earth possessing a half-decent army, except Russia and China. China is economically intertwined with America, and the US looted Russia in the 90s and now has surrounded it. The USA has a continent to itself - it can't be attacked, and it hasn't been attacked in more than a century, unless you count Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Pearl Harbor happened out in the Pacific, and there is evidence FDR let it happen. 9/11 only killed 3000 people, and there is evidence the government let it happen. There is no credible threat to the US in the world today. Nor has there been one for the last 20 years (at least). The US would be secure with just 10% of the current 'defense' budget.
However, the Pentagon money will remain untouchable, for reasons Ike warned about half a century ago - google 'Ike military-industrial-complex'. What remains of America's industry now is the gun&bombs production, and muddling with that is political suicide. Furthermore, the CIA and the Pentagon wield unimaginable power in the congress and the White House.
The most likely outcomes of the current situation are: the arrival of a full-time dictatorship in the US; a series of US instigated wars; imperial overstretch and collapse.
Meanwhile the rich boys are making good money. The most decorated marine in US history - general Smedley Butler - put it well: War is a racket. Look his speech up online.
Yeah, the rich boys are doing OK. Former President Cheney's Haliburton is making (b?)millions. The Chilcot inquiry in England won't touch Tony, even though there is enough evidence to convict him ten times. As for us, the not-so-rich, the citizens of this planet, we are screwed.

 

I'd say return to pre-reagan taxation, because most economists would agree that progressive taxation is important in having enough funds to maintain basic infrastructure, social safety netting, the education system, etc.

The troops should be pulled out, because this war on terror really isn't going anywhere. Its not a real objective. Plus, the CIA covert operations in the middle east had a lot to do with the radicalization of the Arab world. Cutting military spending would be a good step toward clearing debt. 10% of the deficit is from the actual war effort , and other funds go to subsidized industry that's a part of the military industrial complex, as well. Its not that deficit spending is bad. It just depends on what you spend it on. If its a war, there's really nothing to make a profit on, unless the army steals all of Iraq's oil resources and uses it to pay back. China. We all deficit spend when we buy a car or house, which are good uses of loans. If you blow it all in Vegas, though, and don't win anything, then you can't pay your loan back. Worst of all, your creditors loose faith in you, and you won't be able to borrow in the future, meaning your standard of living will go down considerably.

I disagree with the last one, because it would defeat the pretences for the first two.

 

i think they should lower taxes for everyone and cut spending except for the military.

 

I voted for 1 & 2

 

the Reagan administration was waging a war on America, transferring the wealth of the middle class and lower class into the hands of the upper class

Those animals have done so much damage to this country

Reagan was the worst thing the USA ever faced

And yes, the Wealthy need to have their taxes raised to 75% like it was before Reagan


I only voted for the top 1 but I should have voted for all of them I care about no one but myself, I don't want to spend money for anything or anyone

 

Well, I'm a big fan of Keynes - you're in a recession, cutting spending won't help get you out of it. Ride it out, then cut back on military spending (military spending is a good economic stimulus, since the US military purchase American-made things, and employs millions, so it's all right to keep going during a recession) and raise taxes, especially on the wealthy.

 

Everyone wants to always cry tax the rich well if you ask me then if you make over 40k a year you are making well beyond minimal necessary for survival and you should be taxed 75% too!! That makes it fair for everyone right? I'm poor and ok with that but it really kills me to see so many people hate on others just because they have used the system given to all of us and profited from it. How about we stop making everyone pay so much and instead downsize all of those unneeded government branches blowing thousands of tax dollars on secretaries and business trips. Maybe if everyone stopped hating the rich so much they would feel more inclined to invest their money back into society, they are the ones who can save us from economic decay not the government.

All of your blatant hatred of the rich for having what you don't is the same as the trailer park trash in this country who slash their neighbors tires because they got a new car and that person is jealous that they can't afford one. If you want a better country then stop pointing your fingers and instead spend the time working on making things around you better.

Second military spending and defense budget don't really tie together like they should all that money the pentagon sucks up never really makes it to the people defending our country. Anyone who has been around the military can tell you they sure aren't spending lots of money upgrading their equipment. Instead it goes to fallout shelters for politicians and investments in countries whose war efforts will bring our politicians profit.

To think America is unattackable on our soil is ignorant much like how our government thinks some companies are too big to let fail. First in that statement look back through history at who had empires and which countries had the most brutal wars. The jewish in the middle east have survived completely surrounded by people who hate them and attack them on a regular basis. An empire was built by Rome covering over 80% of europe and that was a city. Look at German expansion in both wars. It is not impossible to be attacked. Also if you study any Sun Tzu or the book or five rings you will know that the larger an empire the easier it is to wage war on them as they have many fronts to defend and its easier to get people inside.

To that I say "Sic Vis Paccem Parabelum" If you want peace prepare for war!

 

Ah yes, of course the rich will save us!

 

1 and 2 definitely. I think we should drastically cut military spending.

 

How about we tax all classes equally? It would be unpopular legislation, but would likely improve the economy in the long run. Picking on the rich needs to stop, what's the insentive to gain more than $200,000 a year if you lose 90% of it to taxes? That's where we're headed, and when that happens I assure you our economy (and possibly our society) will collapse.

 

If we were to tax all classes equally, either the poor would all die from overtaxation or the federal government would collapse. The way taxes are set up in Canada and the US and probably the entire developed world are such that you enjoy a low tax rate on the first A dollars you make, a slightly higher on the next B dollars, slightly more on the next C, etc. You'd never turn down a pay raise, and you can afford a 75% tax rate on money you earn over $1 million/year

 

Well, think about it. If a company offered you exactly $200,000 as your yearly salary wouldn't you ask for one dollar less so you can keep more money? The goal is not for everyone to have the same amount of money. But, the way that tax system is set up, that's how it would be. Rich people need to have money to invest, poor people need an insentive to move up in society. What's the point of working harder and being upper class if you will get the same amount of money as everyone else after taxes?

 

lolll okay this poll is kinda biased (which im not really suprised as it is bob's poll heheheh) i think there should be a SHRINK GOVERNMENT option and i would vote for that.

let me reinterate. i think schooling can be cut and restructured. they've doubled the financing, and it didnt do any good. public school systems are failing miserably. we should go with the voucher system, where people can decide where they want to go to school. next, our infrastructure has been neglected for more than 50 years, so we cant cut that. lastly, how can social security(payout or pay-in) be cut? its a savings and they need to leave that money alone and quit spending it on other things besides the ppl who paid into it.

military should not be cut, but we shouldnt spend more. just need to spend money smarter, like get an efficency expert in there and stop wasting. a lot of that spending goes to military research and development, which is why we have the best weapons in the world!

 

*reiterate loll. and theoretically, i agree, tane. though i think there needs to be a bottom because people need enough to sustain themselves, but anyone who makes more than that should be taxed equally. but whos to decide what this theoretical bottom number is? the fair tax sounds good from what i hear, it does away with income tax /irs. anyway, taxing the rich 75% is just obscene! so unfair. poor people dont hire, rich people create jobs. i dont understand why so many people have something against the rich.

 

I think the first thing that should be done before making decisions about what needs to be cut and where is an open admission by the US government that the numbers being used are as much fantasy as anything else. And an attempt of some sort at honesty should follow. Won't happen, of course, but that's what should be done.

Here are some examples of what I mean:

December 2008 - GAAP-Based 2008 Federal Deficit - Most of what is on this site is pay only unfortunately, but the free stuff is still quite good. John Williams makes a very good case that the numbers being fed to the public on the actual deficit are utter garbage.

Dangers of an underreported CPI - The Consumer Price Index is what drives things like Cost of Living Adjustments for retirees...meaning Uncle Sam has a large incentive to shoot the messenger. Or break his kneecaps, as has happened from Nixon to Reagan to Bush I to Clinton.

I believe the most egregious changes were the ones made under the Bush I/Clinton's Boskin Commission (See here: Why Michael Boskin Deserves Our Contempt) but what the government calls inflation and what inflation actually is have been two very different things, for a long, long time. And it has been in the interest of both parties to see that it remains this way, unfortunately.

And one of the weirdest changes of all: in 2006 the Federal Reserve decided to stop measuring the broadest measure of money supply (M3), claiming that doing this was "too expensive," and that the measure was somehow "outdated." See here: Goodbye M3- What is the Government hiding?, for an overview. Perhaps there are better measures to replace it with, (M-Prime, whatever) but they've not been put in place, either. And the expense associated w/gathering the information needed to report M3 has been shown to be garbage by several commentators. But its gone, and nobody can offer any real reason why.

Quite frankly, from where I'm sitting what any policy is going to based upon are numbers about as reflective of reality as the image in a fun house mirror is of an actual individual. I think that can be safely said without any claims being made that there's deliberate manipulation going on, or Republicans this or Democrats that. (Personally, I do think there's been manipulation going on, but do not think its been anything deliberate. More like politicians following the path of least resistance, again and again and again.)