PDA

View Full Version : How to Balance the Budget



llotter
11-24-2010, 08:25 AM
Eliminate or phase out all unconstitutional programs and in short order, not only would the budget come into balance but we could all enjoy significant tax cuts and prosperity would blossom everywhere.

LWW
11-24-2010, 10:47 AM
What is this madness of which you speak?

LWW

eg8r
11-24-2010, 10:54 AM
In theory it is a great idea.

eg8r

pooltchr
11-24-2010, 11:29 AM
More than just theory. If the goal is to get government spending under control, it seems that eliminating all those things government is doing that is outside the scope of their constitutional mandate is a pretty good way to go about it.

Steve

llotter
11-24-2010, 11:34 AM
just the opposite, eg8r...unless you think that freedom is just a theory yet to be proven.

in reality it is a great idea and the theory that is being tested on us all with disastrous results is that government spending will create prosperity. obviously, the theory is erroneous.

eg8r
11-24-2010, 12:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">just the opposite, eg8r...unless you think that freedom is just a theory yet to be proven.

</div></div>You have never seen it in reality so it is just theory.

eg8r

eg8r
11-24-2010, 12:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More than just theory. If the goal is to get government spending under control, it seems that eliminating all those things government is doing that is outside the scope of their constitutional mandate is a pretty good way to go about it.

</div></div>I think if you were financially negatively impacted by this type of change you would not think it was such a great idea. I agree the government is way too large and needs to be reigned in but to go in and slash all of it in one fail swoop would be more disastrous than helpful.

eg8r

Deeman3
11-24-2010, 12:18 PM
Remember what Hillary said, "It's not your money!"

Obama and Pelosi are there to suck the very last chance of a recovery of the Free Enterprise system and even the part majority in Congress can do little to stop them now!

The printing presses won't stop until we are the next Greece. They got exactly what they wanted.

llotter
11-24-2010, 02:04 PM
[/quote]You have never seen it in reality so it is just theory.

eg8r [/quote]

That is not true. through the first 125 yrs of our history, until WWI, the federal government was less than 3% of GDP and we progressed from a poor agricultural country to the richest in the world. That happened with very little government and very much personal responsibility, very much liberty. Since that time, the influence of Marx and his apostles have steadily usurped personal responsibility and replaced it with statism. That Great Experiment has been diminished to point that people now just think of freedom as just an untested theory, no different nor any better than any other scheme of social organization.

eg8r
11-24-2010, 02:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is not true. through the first 125 yrs of our history, until WWI, the federal government was less than 3% of GDP and we progressed from a poor agricultural country to the richest in the world. That happened with very little government and very much personal responsibility, very much liberty.</div></div>I don't believe this is true either. If you would to go back to being a poor agricultural country like we were 125 years ago then so be it, but no one else does.

eg8r

Deeman3
11-24-2010, 02:52 PM
It's a difficult issue. Sort of like a sustainable planet where natural culling of the herds (us) does not occur and there are not, so far, real economic and even social curbs of birth rates. We will, as a society, protect all we can unwilling to distinguish between the needy and the opportunists.

Still, in some countries and cultures, the selection process is self determines for many don't have the ability to control propagation of populations they can't sustain.

Right now, we are all positioning ourselves for where we fall in the deployment of diminishing resources. You just can't re-write the story of the Goose Who Laid the Golden Egg. Overreaching to return to an agrarian society will not be acceptable until the economy completely collapses. The partial solutions offered by the right will help but I am pessimistic about long term results.

llotter
11-24-2010, 02:59 PM
The point is that we became a rich country with very little government and very much freedom, becoming the envy of the world. It wasn't government that made us rich but people working to enrich themselves and it is government that is supposed to protect their freedom, not redistribute their riches.

Deeman3
11-24-2010, 03:04 PM
With some time on my hands now, I have watched a few hours of C-Span. If you think we can work our way out of this with the people we have given power to just watch a few hours of them and what they do and say.

We are screwed!

pooltchr
11-24-2010, 04:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With some time on my hands now, I have watched a few hours of C-Span. If you think we can work our way out of this with the people we have given power to just watch a few hours of them and what they do and say.

We are screwed! </div></div>

On that, I think we can all agree. We have not had qualified leadership in quite some time. With nothing but lawyers in Washington, we should not expect leadership...we should just expect more laws!

And that's exactly what we are getting!

Steve

pooltchr
11-24-2010, 04:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More than just theory. If the goal is to get government spending under control, it seems that eliminating all those things government is doing that is outside the scope of their constitutional mandate is a pretty good way to go about it.

</div></div>I think if you were financially negatively impacted by this type of change you would not think it was such a great idea. I agree the government is way too large and needs to be reigned in but to go in and slash all of it in one fail swoop would be more disastrous than helpful.

eg8r </div></div>

I agree, but I don't think that is a big concern. Even if our leaders were actually motivated to reign in the government to only that which the constitution allows for, it wouldn't happen in one fell swoop. Washington is incapable of doing anything that quickly.

I would like to see them start going through the government, agency by agency, and begin the process.

Several years ago, I was given the job to turn around a business unit that was failing miserably. I did make it profitable, but only by addressing one problem at a time. It would have been impossible to fix everything at once.

But as the saying goes, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Steve

eg8r
11-24-2010, 04:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point is that we became a rich country with very little government and very much freedom, becoming the envy of the world.</div></div>All of this big government, lack of freedom happened in the process of becoming the rich country we are now. It was not "after". Actually this country never knew wealth until the world wars when manufacturing and production went into full gear. Who drove that??? The government.

I am not saying I like big government or anything resembling what we currently have but slashing it the way you are suggesting would cause much more harm than any good.

eg8r

Qtec
11-26-2010, 04:45 AM
How much money has been spent in Iraq and what do the American people have to show for it?

You keep on about Govt spending but that's not the problem, its what they spend it on.

Look again. look where the money goes.

http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2010/11/tax%20cuts.png

83% are due to tax cuts and defence.

Q

llotter
11-26-2010, 05:08 AM
This is the silliest chart I have come across lately. First, it is perverse to consider tax cuts as an expenditure. Using that logic you might as well say that any and all private income is belongs to the government and anything we get to keep contributes to the deficit. Second, how can it be that entitlements represent 10% in your chart and Defense is 35% when spending on entitlements are twice as much as defense?

http://www.whitcam.com/research/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/taxesgowhere.jpg

LWW
11-26-2010, 05:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point is that we became a rich country with very little government and very much freedom, becoming the envy of the world.</div></div>All of this big government, lack of freedom happened in the process of becoming the rich country we are now. It was not "after". Actually this country never knew wealth until the world wars when manufacturing and production went into full gear. Who drove that??? The government.

eg8r </div></div>

Sorry, but that's simply not true.

In 1900 the USA had the third highest GDP per capita and was running at 94.8% of the #1 nation at the time.

Currently we are still third, but are running at only 59.5% of the #1 nation ... and, FWIW, wars destroy wealth and do not create wealth.

FACTS ... (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_190-economy-gdp-per-capita-1900)

yhey are such stubborn things. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_ppp_percap-economy-gdp-ppp-per-capita)

LWW