well paybacks are a bitch - bring a solutionQuote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Printable View
well paybacks are a bitch - bring a solutionQuote:
Originally Posted by Starter
I couldn't agree more. The "War On Drugs" is one of the stupidest things we have ever done on the national level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor-y
There is no easy solution. This problem has been building for many years. You probably won't like some of my solutions either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
1) Yes, some tax rates need to be raised. This is tricky as you don't want to squash the economy while doing so.
2) Spending cuts, almost across the board. However, Social Security and Medicare - no changes for those whose ages put them within five years of drawing on the programs.
3) Dramatic reductions in programs. Keep the "have to have" and dump the "nice to have". Lots of room for interpretation here though.
4) Revise the tax code. EVERYBODY pays something. Even those already on government assistance. NO exceptions. My point here is not the money raised because the amount from those now not paying taxes won't amount to much more than the "millionaire" tax will produce. It's to put all those people who now don't care about the subject so long as they get theirs (gov't. payment, tax credit, what ever) into the "I pay taxes and I do give a s**t about how you spend my money" group. In other words, they'll have a dog in the fight. The "me" class becomes the "what the heck are you spending my money on" class.
5) Revise the tax code part two. Keep the current rates (or only adjust them slightly) but eliminate almost all of the deductions for everybody.
6) Slash all government subsidies for various industries, this includes farming. Let the market determine pricing.
7) Slash almost all foreign aid.
I have more too, but this is plenty to get everybody all riled up. :p
Basically I would have to say ditto to Starter. MASSIVE spending cuts across the board coupled with some modest increase in revenue brought about by real tax reform, ie flattening it out.
Perhaps voters determined that Romney's policies represented the same staus quo that helped to land us in the deepest recession since the 1930's. Had Romney articulated a position or a plan on the economy (one plan, not a different one every other week - and not one which was simply parroting the GOP's tired "deregulate and cut taxes" line), perhaps he would have gained more traction with voters. At least under Obama, the bleeding has largely stopped and we do have growth, albeit stagnant. Congress and the Fed also have a hand in this. We need to realize who does what. Monetary policy is determined by the Fed, not by the President and not by Congress - which is why I've always been amused by those who claim that "Reagan whipped inflation." Reagan had as much to do with whipping inflation as I did. Thankfully, the Fed is not quite as political, and not nearly as partisan as Congress and the Executive Branch. I don't agree with everything that Bernanke has done. But he's really about the only one who isn't just sitting on his thumbs and humming.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
And yet, he got more votes than Romney. So there's always that. :DQuote:
I suppose that's why the President got way less votes this time around.
I can instantly save $830m from the US Budget and it would cost literally nothing; also save possibly billions in wasted time, thus increasingly productivity.
Kill the penny and nickel.
It costs roughly 2.4c to make a penny and 11c to make a nickel. As far as I can tell, they serve no utilitarian function anymore and are just a hinderance. A Wheat Cent when it came out in 1909 had roughly the same buying power as $1.50 now.
I can see no sensible reason for either the penny or nickel's continued existence.
Same argument can be made about the one dollar bill vs. the one dollar coin. Stop printing the one dollar bill in favour of coins and it would save 5.5 billion dollars over 30 years, or roughly 180 million a year. Do the same for the two dollar bill and you'll save millions again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Sounds about right. I'm no expert on how national economies work, but with my family economy the story is simple. If expenses exceed revenues, we are in trouble and need to cut spending. Or else...Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I used to think this way, also, but now I think it is a mistake. A government is not a household. If it were a household though, why are we worried?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
$16 trillion debt, on a $15 trillion income, my banker would say, go on and get that $45 trillion house you've always dreamed of :p . In real life, I have done just that. Essentially I have only mortgage debt, and I bought a house last month without selling my previous house. I went from my total debt being 1/2 of my annual income to being 2.7 times my annual income in one fell swoop, yet I easily qualify, not to mention my income increases next Sunday when I lease my old house to a renter.
Now, it behooves me as a household to get out of debt because I would eventually like to stop working someday and there is risk involved in debt, but those situations don't apply to government who also can devalue their currency and inflate their way out of crisis by just printing money when all else fails. So unless the US is planning on going out of business anytime soon, I have decided not to worry about the debt.
Sounds familiar. First they inflate, then devalue and leave it to the taxpayers to figure out how to survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexamateo
We had that situation in Belarus two years ago. The gov't used the model of inflationary growth and kept salaries higher than they should have been. That continued until the incumbent pres won another election in late 2010. Then with his need for votes gone he devalued the national currency by some 2.7 times. Many people instantly became poor.
Given the fact, that politicians are same shameless populists everywhere it can happen in the U.S., too. Get ready, folks. This was Obama's last election. He no longer needs your votes.