Interest Rates On The Federal Debt Won't Stay Low Forever

HFNY

https://youtube.com/watch?v=vnZkXf_viLM

And the 2015 Federal Deficit increased for the first time since 2009...not good.

If the next President is a moderate, he could combine business tax reform with a foreign profits repatriation agreement. There are hundreds of billions of profits abroad that companies would bring back to the USA with comprehensive reform. A 15% one-time tax on those profits could yield over $300 billion in tax revenues.

greenblood

That would be nice if it went towards the deficit. However, we all know it will get wasted in more military spending or social welfare programs.

doogsinparadise

Nogaf about the deficit.

GreenRiverGatorz

The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.

But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.

dhdawg

greenblood said:

That would be nice if it went towards the deficit. However, we all know it will get wasted in more military spending or social welfare programs.

or both, it's a compromise. The dems let the republicans waste money on the military, and the republicans return the favor with money for social welfare

2001400ex

GreenRiverGatorz said:

The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.

But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.

The social security fix is easy. Right now the tax ends at $118k of income. Reinstate the tax at $400k or something and social security will be fine. Put a 30 year time bomb on it so when the boomers are dead it'll revert back.

HFNY

Haha true though a better deal would be that half of the money goes towards paying down the FY's (2017 or 2018 when the new President is in office) and half goes towards infrastructure spending.

dhdawg said:

greenblood said:

That would be nice if it went towards the deficit. However, we all know it will get wasted in more military spending or social welfare programs.

or both, it's a compromise. The dems let the republicans waste money on the military, and the republicans return the favor with money for social welfare

HFNY

In the spirit of compromise, where are you going to cut spending? Can't keep raising taxes to satiate an ever growing Federal Government bureaucracy.

2001400ex said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.

But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.

The social security fix is easy. Right now the tax ends at $118k of income. Reinstate the tax at $400k or something and social security will be fine. Put a 30 year time bomb on it so when the boomers are dead it'll revert back.

2001400ex

HFNY said:

In the spirit of compromise, where are you going to cut spending? Can't keep raising taxes to satiate an ever growing Federal Government bureaucracy.

2001400ex said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.

But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.

The social security fix is easy. Right now the tax ends at $118k of income. Reinstate the tax at $400k or something and social security will be fine. Put a 30 year time bomb on it so when the boomers are dead it'll revert back.

Make lobbying illegal, or at least using money to lobby. Then put it on all departments to report where they can trim their budget and provide incentives to the departments that trim the most. Fire those who can't find anything to trim.

That puts the responsibility on the departments for two reasons. 1) politicians who cut from their constituents will get voted out, this eliminates that issue. 2) it's impossible to determine the best ways to save money at a macro level. So what ends up happening is a blanket 5% cut or whatever, rather than specific cuts that can be accomplished effectively. Not to mention, getting 500 plus politicians to agree on cuts is impossible.

GreenRiverGatorz

2001400ex said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.

But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.

The social security fix is easy. Right now the tax ends at $118k of income. Reinstate the tax at $400k or something and social security will be fine. Put a 30 year time bomb on it so when the boomers are dead it'll revert back.

So establish a non-deductible 6% tax for both upper-middle class Americans and employers? That's a political dead-end that will never see the light of day.

GreenRiverGatorz

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

In the spirit of compromise, where are you going to cut spending? Can't keep raising taxes to satiate an ever growing Federal Government bureaucracy.

2001400ex said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.

But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.

The social security fix is easy. Right now the tax ends at $118k of income. Reinstate the tax at $400k or something and social security will be fine. Put a 30 year time bomb on it so when the boomers are dead it'll revert back.

Make lobbying illegal, or at least using money to lobby. Then put it on all departments to report where they can trim their budget and provide incentives to the departments that trim the most. Fire those who can't find anything to trim.

That puts the responsibility on the departments for two reasons. 1) politicians who cut from their constituents will get voted out, this eliminates that issue. 2) it's impossible to determine the best ways to save money at a macro level. So what ends up happening is a blanket 5% cut or whatever, rather than specific cuts that can be accomplished effectively. Not to mention, getting 500 plus politicians to agree on cuts is impossible.

So make lobbying illegal, i.e. reverse the 2010 SCOTUS decision. At the very least, that won't even become a possibility until the current conservative justices die, and aren't replaced by other conservatives. Then you actually to have politicians sacrifice their own kickbacks and pass a law that bans lobbying. I won't hold my breath.

Getting 500 politicians to agree on cuts is a lot more likely than waiting around for a court ruling that may take decades to resolve itself.

2001400ex

GreenRiverGatorz said:

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

In the spirit of compromise, where are you going to cut spending? Can't keep raising taxes to satiate an ever growing Federal Government bureaucracy.

2001400ex said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.

But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.

The social security fix is easy. Right now the tax ends at $118k of income. Reinstate the tax at $400k or something and social security will be fine. Put a 30 year time bomb on it so when the boomers are dead it'll revert back.

Make lobbying illegal, or at least using money to lobby. Then put it on all departments to report where they can trim their budget and provide incentives to the departments that trim the most. Fire those who can't find anything to trim.

That puts the responsibility on the departments for two reasons. 1) politicians who cut from their constituents will get voted out, this eliminates that issue. 2) it's impossible to determine the best ways to save money at a macro level. So what ends up happening is a blanket 5% cut or whatever, rather than specific cuts that can be accomplished effectively. Not to mention, getting 500 plus politicians to agree on cuts is impossible.

So make lobbying illegal, i.e. reverse the 2010 SCOTUS decision. At the very least, that won't even become a possibility until the current conservative justices die, and aren't replaced by other conservatives. Then you actually to have politicians sacrifice their own kickbacks and pass a law that bans lobbying. I won't hold my breath.

Getting 500 politicians to agree on cuts is a lot more likely than waiting around for a court ruling that may take decades to resolve itself.

Citizens united has nothing to do with lobbying. Citizens united has to do with campaign contributions. Lobbying has to do with buying off politicians in office.

However, overturning citizens united, or at least making the source of all contributions public, is a great idea.

That being said, start with the part where departments determine their cuts. Try to get lobbying ended during that process.

If my plan is shitty,, what's your plan then?

greenblood

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

In the spirit of compromise, where are you going to cut spending? Can't keep raising taxes to satiate an ever growing Federal Government bureaucracy.

2001400ex said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.

But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.

The social security fix is easy. Right now the tax ends at $118k of income. Reinstate the tax at $400k or something and social security will be fine. Put a 30 year time bomb on it so when the boomers are dead it'll revert back.

Make lobbying illegal, or at least using money to lobby. Then put it on all departments to report where they can trim their budget and provide incentives to the departments that trim the most. Fire those who can't find anything to trim.

That puts the responsibility on the departments for two reasons. 1) politicians who cut from their constituents will get voted out, this eliminates that issue. 2) it's impossible to determine the best ways to save money at a macro level. So what ends up happening is a blanket 5% cut or whatever, rather than specific cuts that can be accomplished effectively. Not to mention, getting 500 plus politicians to agree on cuts is impossible.

Your argument died after illegal. You're telling me, politicians can voluntarily agree to make illegal something that has made them filthy rich for over 100 years? You know damn well department heads are only going to cut the systems that actually work, because cutting inefficient systems means a cut in their handout. Here's a little secret: Politicians get their kickbacks from the inefficiencies in government systems. The only way to solve this is to have less government involvement and have most of these systems in the free market, where market factors force efficiency. But that won't happen, because politicians won't make as much money.

Here's some more logic. The less things the government gets involved with, the less money they need to operate. That's how you cut the deficit. The government will never create efficient programs, because the people behind the scenes will always want to get theirs. The best way to handle it, is to provide fewer avenues for greedy politicians to access taxpayer money.

2001400ex

greenblood said:

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

In the spirit of compromise, where are you going to cut spending? Can't keep raising taxes to satiate an ever growing Federal Government bureaucracy.

2001400ex said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.

But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.

The social security fix is easy. Right now the tax ends at $118k of income. Reinstate the tax at $400k or something and social security will be fine. Put a 30 year time bomb on it so when the boomers are dead it'll revert back.

Make lobbying illegal, or at least using money to lobby. Then put it on all departments to report where they can trim their budget and provide incentives to the departments that trim the most. Fire those who can't find anything to trim.

That puts the responsibility on the departments for two reasons. 1) politicians who cut from their constituents will get voted out, this eliminates that issue. 2) it's impossible to determine the best ways to save money at a macro level. So what ends up happening is a blanket 5% cut or whatever, rather than specific cuts that can be accomplished effectively. Not to mention, getting 500 plus politicians to agree on cuts is impossible.

Your argument died after illegal. You're telling me, politicians can voluntarily agree to make illegal something that has made them filthy rich for over 100 years? You know damn well department heads are only going to cut the systems that actually work, because cutting inefficient systems means a cut in their handout. Here's a little secret: Politicians get their kickbacks from the inefficiencies in government systems. The only way to solve this is to have less government involvement and have most of these systems in the free market, where market factors force efficiency. But that won't happen, because politicians won't make as much money.

Here's some more logic. The less things the government gets involved with, the less money they need to operate. That's how you cut the deficit. The government will never create efficient programs, because the people behind the scenes will always want to get theirs. The best way to handle it, is to provide fewer avenues for greedy politicians to access taxpayer money.

Lol so all my ideas suck, politicians will never make money if they cut from their department. But the solution is to eliminate all the departments and replace with the free market? (Which eliminates money from their pocket)

Did you think about what you typed before you hit send?

Reality is, my plan would never get passed cause there's too much money. The government will never turn departments into the free market cause there's to much money.

Under the current system, no politician from either party is serious about cutting government spending.

dnc

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

In the spirit of compromise, where are you going to cut spending? Can't keep raising taxes to satiate an ever growing Federal Government bureaucracy.

2001400ex said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.

But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.

The social security fix is easy. Right now the tax ends at $118k of income. Reinstate the tax at $400k or something and social security will be fine. Put a 30 year time bomb on it so when the boomers are dead it'll revert back.

Make lobbying illegal, or at least using money to lobby. Then put it on all departments to report where they can trim their budget and provide incentives to the departments that trim the most. Fire those who can't find anything to trim.

That puts the responsibility on the departments for two reasons. 1) politicians who cut from their constituents will get voted out, this eliminates that issue. 2) it's impossible to determine the best ways to save money at a macro level. So what ends up happening is a blanket 5% cut or whatever, rather than specific cuts that can be accomplished effectively. Not to mention, getting 500 plus politicians to agree on cuts is impossible.

Your argument died after illegal. You're telling me, politicians can voluntarily agree to make illegal something that has made them filthy rich for over 100 years? You know damn well department heads are only going to cut the systems that actually work, because cutting inefficient systems means a cut in their handout. Here's a little secret: Politicians get their kickbacks from the inefficiencies in government systems. The only way to solve this is to have less government involvement and have most of these systems in the free market, where market factors force efficiency. But that won't happen, because politicians won't make as much money.

Here's some more logic. The less things the government gets involved with, the less money they need to operate. That's how you cut the deficit. The government will never create efficient programs, because the people behind the scenes will always want to get theirs. The best way to handle it, is to provide fewer avenues for greedy politicians to access taxpayer money.

Lol so all my ideas suck

crisped

greenblood

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

In the spirit of compromise, where are you going to cut spending? Can't keep raising taxes to satiate an ever growing Federal Government bureaucracy.

2001400ex said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.

But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.

The social security fix is easy. Right now the tax ends at $118k of income. Reinstate the tax at $400k or something and social security will be fine. Put a 30 year time bomb on it so when the boomers are dead it'll revert back.

Make lobbying illegal, or at least using money to lobby. Then put it on all departments to report where they can trim their budget and provide incentives to the departments that trim the most. Fire those who can't find anything to trim.

That puts the responsibility on the departments for two reasons. 1) politicians who cut from their constituents will get voted out, this eliminates that issue. 2) it's impossible to determine the best ways to save money at a macro level. So what ends up happening is a blanket 5% cut or whatever, rather than specific cuts that can be accomplished effectively. Not to mention, getting 500 plus politicians to agree on cuts is impossible.

Your argument died after illegal. You're telling me, politicians can voluntarily agree to make illegal something that has made them filthy rich for over 100 years? You know damn well department heads are only going to cut the systems that actually work, because cutting inefficient systems means a cut in their handout. Here's a little secret: Politicians get their kickbacks from the inefficiencies in government systems. The only way to solve this is to have less government involvement and have most of these systems in the free market, where market factors force efficiency. But that won't happen, because politicians won't make as much money.

Here's some more logic. The less things the government gets involved with, the less money they need to operate. That's how you cut the deficit. The government will never create efficient programs, because the people behind the scenes will always want to get theirs. The best way to handle it, is to provide fewer avenues for greedy politicians to access taxpayer money.

Lol so all my ideas suck, politicians will never make money if they cut from their department. But the solution is to eliminate all the departments and replace with the free market? (Which eliminates money from their pocket)

Did you think about what you typed before you hit send?

Reality is, my plan would never get passed cause there's too much money. The government will never turn departments into the free market cause there's to much money.

Under the current system, no politician from either party is serious about cutting government spending.

Exactly.

The only way to cut the deficit is to cut programs entirely from the government and move them to the free market. Shrinking program budgets doesn't work.

You are right that the government as it is now, won't do this. I never said they would. But it's the only way to actual cut the budget.

But also trying to take more money from working class Americans so a portion of it can go to the efficient parts of programs also isn't a solution either. It just condones the continued misappropriations of tax payers funds.

HeretoBeatmyChest

Interest rates = inflation + nominal GDP.

Rates are not going up until economic growth picks up.

At that point the Federal Reserve will be buying bonds hand over fist to keep rates from rising to natural levels as it would bankrupt the government. The interest on the debt has to remain artificially low so we can devalue the debt burden over time. This is what we did in the 1940s and it worked. Will work again but the cost will be very high inflation.

Kaepsknee

As long as we have the Chinese to continue to buy our debt, its all gravy baby. The lions share of federal taxes go to the military, teaching English as a 2nd language to half of the kids there and to provide services to the old and lazy. None of which really benefit me cept for freedom.

2001400ex

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

Interest rates = inflation + nominal GDP.

Rates are not going up until economic growth picks up.

At that point the Federal Reserve will be buying bonds hand over fist to keep rates from rising to natural levels as it would bankrupt the government. The interest on the debt has to remain artificially low so we can devalue the debt burden over time. This is what we did in the 1940s and it worked. Will work again but the cost will be very high inflation.

But don't forget what we did in the 50s to pay down the debt. We raised tax rates to 90% of every dollar over $100,000. That won't work now for many reasons. Just pointing out how we got out of our great depression/WW2 debt.

2001400ex

greenblood said:

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

In the spirit of compromise, where are you going to cut spending? Can't keep raising taxes to satiate an ever growing Federal Government bureaucracy.

2001400ex said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.

But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.

The social security fix is easy. Right now the tax ends at $118k of income. Reinstate the tax at $400k or something and social security will be fine. Put a 30 year time bomb on it so when the boomers are dead it'll revert back.

Make lobbying illegal, or at least using money to lobby. Then put it on all departments to report where they can trim their budget and provide incentives to the departments that trim the most. Fire those who can't find anything to trim.

That puts the responsibility on the departments for two reasons. 1) politicians who cut from their constituents will get voted out, this eliminates that issue. 2) it's impossible to determine the best ways to save money at a macro level. So what ends up happening is a blanket 5% cut or whatever, rather than specific cuts that can be accomplished effectively. Not to mention, getting 500 plus politicians to agree on cuts is impossible.

Your argument died after illegal. You're telling me, politicians can voluntarily agree to make illegal something that has made them filthy rich for over 100 years? You know damn well department heads are only going to cut the systems that actually work, because cutting inefficient systems means a cut in their handout. Here's a little secret: Politicians get their kickbacks from the inefficiencies in government systems. The only way to solve this is to have less government involvement and have most of these systems in the free market, where market factors force efficiency. But that won't happen, because politicians won't make as much money.

Here's some more logic. The less things the government gets involved with, the less money they need to operate. That's how you cut the deficit. The government will never create efficient programs, because the people behind the scenes will always want to get theirs. The best way to handle it, is to provide fewer avenues for greedy politicians to access taxpayer money.

Lol so all my ideas suck, politicians will never make money if they cut from their department. But the solution is to eliminate all the departments and replace with the free market? (Which eliminates money from their pocket)

Did you think about what you typed before you hit send?

Reality is, my plan would never get passed cause there's too much money. The government will never turn departments into the free market cause there's to much money.

Under the current system, no politician from either party is serious about cutting government spending.

Exactly.

The only way to cut the deficit is to cut programs entirely from the government and move them to the free market. Shrinking program budgets doesn't work.

You are right that the government as it is now, won't do this. I never said they would. But it's the only way to actual cut the budget.

But also trying to take more money from working class Americans so a portion of it can go to the efficient parts of programs also isn't a solution either. It just condones the continued misappropriations of tax payers funds.

My tax increase was specific for social security, not discretionary spending. However it's laughable that the government would actually do that.

GreenRiverGatorz

2001400ex said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

In the spirit of compromise, where are you going to cut spending? Can't keep raising taxes to satiate an ever growing Federal Government bureaucracy.

2001400ex said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.

But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.

The social security fix is easy. Right now the tax ends at $118k of income. Reinstate the tax at $400k or something and social security will be fine. Put a 30 year time bomb on it so when the boomers are dead it'll revert back.

Make lobbying illegal, or at least using money to lobby. Then put it on all departments to report where they can trim their budget and provide incentives to the departments that trim the most. Fire those who can't find anything to trim.

That puts the responsibility on the departments for two reasons. 1) politicians who cut from their constituents will get voted out, this eliminates that issue. 2) it's impossible to determine the best ways to save money at a macro level. So what ends up happening is a blanket 5% cut or whatever, rather than specific cuts that can be accomplished effectively. Not to mention, getting 500 plus politicians to agree on cuts is impossible.

So make lobbying illegal, i.e. reverse the 2010 SCOTUS decision. At the very least, that won't even become a possibility until the current conservative justices die, and aren't replaced by other conservatives. Then you actually to have politicians sacrifice their own kickbacks and pass a law that bans lobbying. I won't hold my breath.

Getting 500 politicians to agree on cuts is a lot more likely than waiting around for a court ruling that may take decades to resolve itself.

Citizens united has nothing to do with lobbying. Citizens united has to do with campaign contributions. Lobbying has to do with buying off politicians in office.

However, overturning citizens united, or at least making the source of all contributions public, is a great idea.

That being said, start with the part where departments determine their cuts. Try to get lobbying ended during that process.

If my plan is shitty,, what's your plan then?

If you're referring to the K Street variety of lobbying, then I really don't understand how that would ever become illegal. I don't consider myself a legal scholar, but how exactly would it be Constitutional to prevent anyone, even special interest groups, from lobbying members of Congress? Even something as simple as writing a letter to your Congressman is still lobbying.