OK, we can start by eliminating Social Security. Then, we can move on to "Unemployment/welfare/other mandatory spending." It's convenient to apply such a label to that slice of the pie, but much of welfare is anything but mandatory. Some of it could be eliminated, much of it could be reduced and return it to being the safety net it was intended to be, not the lifestyle it has become for many.

I would offer the opinion that the national debt will never be completely eliminated. There will always be world events that prevent it from being the case for any significant length of time.

You need to trim 9% off the TOTAL budget to match revenue to expenditures.

I suggest you trim 18%. a 250 billion surplus (which is 18% cut in expenditure) will take 36 years to pay off the current 9T in debt. That's assuming social security tax revenue increases to cover upcoming unpaid liabilities.

Point in case: You can cut ALL unemployment/welfare stuff and still not be close to getting somewhere.

And Seadog jumped my as* the other day because I was infringing on what he "deserved" since he paid so many years, because I'm pis*ed this is mess is going to be left to my generation, and the generations after me to fix.

THANKS!

Let me put it this way: I'm going to be one PO'd dude if Congress cuts taxes again.

I don't know what bad dope is being smoked, but tax cuts are what goes us here. Cutting them further is going to dig us deeper (is that even possible?). IMHO, taxes cannot be cut until spending at least equals revenue (think of the late 90's!) And I don't care which party, red, blue, green. Don't cut revenue until it outpaces expenses. And if expenses are not cut, taxes HAVE to be increased. We're living on borrowed time. A tax increase is not going to break the country nearly as bad as it's going to crash when our dollar isn't worth jack and when China owns half of us.

D-rod-

IMO, cutting taxes did not get us "here". Out of control spending got us here. It's a "chicken or the egg" debate. Do we save money, or just make the people pay more?

Who was the "brain" that thought it would be smart to cut taxes as we started TWO wars in difference countries?

Look what happened when a certain someone took office several years ago. Do you think tax revenues exceeded spending from the 50's to the 80's? NO! Economic growth. HUM...look what happened since minus a the 6 years or so we were on the right tract. Hum....I wonder which policy idea doesn't work after all?

Don't worry. In a few months the nation will most likely elect the blue team (never understood that color coding). Taxes WILL be going up, and the economy will continue to founder as no one will have any money to buy anything and corporate profits shall fall and therefore even less taxes shall get paid.
OR
We elect the red team and we continue on the path we are on, giving people back thier money but making no effort to reduce the rampant spending.

I am not a blue or red team fan, don't agree with the policy(s) of either side. But someone had best get thier act together or we are the next Rome. (insert flushing icon here)

D-Rod, you are right that I will jump your tail when you try to deprive my generation of our due. It is not any particular generation that is at fault in these things, it is the ignorance of politicians. Or I should say, the lack of concern about our future when it conflicts with their personal futures.

As far as taxes go, I happen to agree with you to a point. However, trying to buy down the national debt is not a viable option for short term. Part of the issue is to find a relationship between debt and GDP that works. You show how in the GDP ratio decreased for three decades, but a large part of that was due to our unprecedent growth in productivity. Around 1970, we started to see our growth taper off and by 1980, we were in a world of hurt because all of our manufacturing was leaving for asia. People were in a world of hurt in the 70s. We had gone from building great things, to doing no major projects. Hundreds of aerospace engineers were out of jobs due to cut backs in Defense, NASA, and commercial aircraft. Civil engineers were not building any great dams, bridges, interstates, etc. Automotive engineers were replaced by asian design teams.

Our military was degraded to a joke in the mid-70s. Because of that and silly foreign policies, our enemies took firm root in the Middle East. To counter the down slide, Reagan undertook a massive rebuilding of the military strengths. If he had not done so, a good number of our industries would have perished, putting our reliance on manufacturers in other nations, with strong ties to their government. It took awhile to rebuild our ability to compete, but by 1990, it was starting to take hold. The Clinton administration, merely went back to the old way of doing things which was nothing. Aided by the dot.com industry and the good feelings from the 80s, we looked good on paper, but then the dot.com bubble burst. It was shortly followed by 9/11 which led to the issues you see.

The real issue, is that government thinks in terms of 4 years at a time. Nothing exists outside of that 4 year period. Our competition is largely made of people that are thinking 30-40 years out.

Derek, you blame my generation, but that is not fair. We have our share of fools and leeches, but so will your generation. Each generation tries to move society forward a little. I have spent the past 38 years serving society in many ways. I may spend another 10 years both earning a living and being a part of my community. I am tired and welcome the idea of not punching a clock in my future. Even so, it may just mean that I will spend more time doing things for my community.

1. I support both of those, independently

2. What I don't support...is the lack of financial discipline that followed. I have no problem saying I am not a fan of MANY of the decisions that have been made over the past 8 yrs. That being said....lack of financial responsibility and accountability can be found on BOTH sides of the isle.

3. If you think raising taxes is the answer to solving the problems our government has created....I respectively disagree.

Obviously a smart "brain", since by cutting tax rates, tax revenues went up. Just imagine how bad the deficit would be if we had followed the advise of the current candidates for president and not cut taxes. Or worse, raised them.
Talk about dumb & dumber.

Bekosh:

Statistics argue differently.



http://www.heritage.org/research/feature...Is-Growing.html

I hope you have a mathematics background, or what im about to say might start to sounds gibberish. We're a growing nation, we're constantly growing. Because we're constantly growing, government is constantly growing. That's basics. The rate of growth is important. It's the "slope" or "first derivative". In this particular instance, we're focusing on tax revenues. What we're interested in is the rate of change, of the rate of increase of tax revenues - the slope of the slope - or the second derivative (d^2). If the rate of increase is increasing, you get a positive d^2. The greater the increase of the rate of increase, the larger the d^2. If we look at the period from 1981-1900, you find poor overall revenue growth. Even if you go from the minimum in 82 to the peak in 89, the overall rate of growth is poor compared to what happened with tax revenues in the 1990's. The 1990's rate of growth is about double that of the 80's.

Look what happened when taxes were cut in the 80's and in 2001/2003. Yes, it is true the economy also slower in those period. Back up a couple of decades. What happened when taxes were not drastically decreased during slump periods? The fallouts were much smaller and shorter. The argument the tax breaks are needed to jumpstart the economy is not found exampled with statistical history. It's an interesting theory that makes sense until you start looking at numbers.

Seadog:

I'm a little more than confused at the moment. You jumped me when I said we needed to reduce our dependence on oil, that we needed to make compromises to luxuries we enjoy today in order to protect our future interests. Example: A little suffering in 2002/2003 by drastically increasing the gas tax, thus artificially creating a demand for more fuel efficient vehicles, as well as a steady, progressive average fuel economy increase would have reduced the severity of our current crisis. Looking forward 30-40 years, we absolutely, positively cannot be as dependent upon oil as we are today. It's an unsustainable game that we will ultimately loose. I think it's safe to say i'm looking outside of the 4-year window. Btw, back up a few years, even if the environmentals would have allowed drilling in ANWAR and off the shores, that still would not have solved the crisis we're in now.

There are currently 70 million, thats 70,000,000, acres of public land leased to oil companies in the US to develop that were NOT developed. Today, the companies still have the leases but they're not developed. There are 17,000 total off-shore "sections". Of those 17,000 sections, only 4,000 are developed. And from those 4,000 sections comes 25% of our domestic supply.

Oil companies have had these leases, oil to be extracted, and they choose not to extract. Explain to me how and why more offshore leases, and more acreage changes the situation? Point the finger to the environmentals, but they're really not the root cause. The opportunity was there, oil companies ignored it.

I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking your generation. That was not my intention. I approached the "we have to change or else" topic, which seems to have a sour tone. But "change" doesn't have to deprive.

BTW: Anytime a politician comes up with a long term goal or plan, everyone pounces it or ignores it. There are politicians saying the same thing you're saying. It's a drowned out or ignored thought.

LB: There's a REAL NICE place for you in rural Kansas. I've never been to Georgia, I do not know the area. However, I do know that almost ALL of rural Kansas follows your very thought process. It's lead to 0 or negative growth for many towns. I'm not saying all of the ideas are broken, but i've PERSONALLY witnessed 90% of your ideals fail in rural Kansas. I don't mean that derogatory or as a know-it-all comment. I wish you would visit. I would be glad to drive you around to different areas and do some explaining.

Anyways, i'll go back to my little corner now. Fire away.

Opps. I rambled too much. I forgot to finish my original point off.

I disagree. I feel we have to run a surplus budget for at least 10 years to balance things out. We don't need to pay the debt OFF, but we need to reduce it and let our GDP (aka economy) grow. It need to be brought into proportions.



Ya'll thought SS, Medicaid, and Medicare was too expensive. Think again, yo!

Can't borrow to fund ourselves and be sustainable, regardless of GDP. Simple economics.

So, as previously mentioned, we have 3 options

1) Cut spending
2) Increase revenue
3) A combination of 1 and 2

When you look at the spending chart, I don't think you're going to be able to trim 9% of it. If so, please propose where you choose to do it. That leave us with a combination of cuts and revenue increase.

Let the utility and benefit discussions begin!