How would you fix the deficit?

[doubtingmerle]

The "boat" is the concept of the nation-state, and it covers nearly every hospitable square foot of land on the face of the planet. Do you know of a different planet without this problem?

Nah, I'll stick around. Because, see, the problem with the sinking boat analogy is that we'll all be better off, not drowned, without it.

Interesting. So if the very concept of a nation-state is a sinking ship, your views sound very much like anarchy to me.

I cannot imagine how we could run a complex modern world without nations. Can you explain to me why you think that is better?

 

[MacFall]

Interesting. So if the very concept of a nation-state is a sinking ship, your views sound very much like anarchy to me.

Well, they would.

I cannot imagine how we could run a complex modern world without nations.

Good thing not everyone shares that deficiency.

 

[bibleblevr]

Tell them, "It's okay to take a currency that the government did not print." Bully pulpit and all.

There are no laws against taking other currencies or precious metals

Because only a government monopoly has the ability to significantly expand the quantity of its money without being quickly driven out of the market.

You know that inflation at a slow steady 3% is great for the economy deflation is bad.

They would be able to borrow but they would not be able to monetize their debt (print money to cover it). That severely restricts their ability to borrow. Basically, if they can't cover it in taxes and voluntary contributions, they can't spend it. That would result in a government probably less than 1% the size of the one we currently have.

1% I doubt that
By the way the government doesn't make its own money it must borrow from the Federal Reserve.

The Fed is a government-enforced monopoly with the power to fraudulently create more money (counterfeit). It is nominally private, but could not exist without government privilege.

No, it doesn't fraudulently create money it regulates the rate of inflation by adjusting the money supply; an essential part of maintaining a strong economy. Your "Plan" would have wild and unpredictable gyrations to the money supply and wreak havoc on not only our economy, but the worlds.

 

[doubtingmerle]

This is neither forcing nor asking for donations. Our presence is offered to these governments as a product they can choose to buy it or not based on their various protection needs. The price is set at cost thus our presence would be a nonprofit endeavor.

Many nations such as Taiwan or Korea would not likely want to make there own substantial military since for the same protection level it would be a comparable price to run it and a massive investment to build and train it. Keeping the US military requires no awkward and costly transitional period and comes with the assurance that they have chosen the fiercest and best equipped military in the world to protect themselves with.

Current treaties and agreements would not change and our agreement to protect them would be exactly as strong now. As for those who don't pay, we then assume that this means that they will offer their own protection, and we pull out over a fifteen year period allowing ample time for them to raise their own security force. If attacked we will assist them just like any other ally.

Current estimates of the cost of keeping foreign bases range from around 250 billion to 350 billion depending on what the source includes

Split the difference: 3 slices

Good luck getting foreigners to give us $300 billion to keep our bases open. Our bases are often seen as a threat. Many foreigners would gladly see them go. If we tell them we will close the bases unless thy pay us huge sums of money, I expect most will bid us goodbye.

Our bases do far more than protect foreign countries. They also enforce United States' interests overseas.

So unless you accept a major cutback in enforcing our interests overseas, I don't see you getting these 3 slices.

And it has been thoroughly gutted by the democrats the workfare laws are a joke. How about a real and sharp toothed set of laws to structure this reform.

If I was to structure it, I would start by making a list of government jobs and possible projects that need to be staffed and requiring employment in one of these positions in order to have government assistance dispensed. Naturally there would be a perfectly reasonable phase in period. These welfare people would be able to sign up online, over the phone, at any government building and would receive mail with places to sign up. Most projects would likely be supervised by local government administration.

Current federal welfare spending is about 420 billion we could drop that to 120 billion, yes that is a drastic reduction yes I do think that is realistic.
3 slices

Actually a Democrat instituted Workfare (Bill Clinton) and it has never been gutted. Can you give me a source that documents this gutting you refer to?

Yes, eliminate it [Medicare] as we know it. The insurance model is a horrible idea when there is not price analysis by the consumer, then of course markets won't function properly. Let personal accountability and personal decision return and the market for healthcare will function properly. To give an example of how putting the money in the hands of the consumer vs blindly letting insurance cover things works so well ill give you an example:

While offroading I smashed the door of my Range Rover into a tree. I called the insurance company and they quoted $2800 for the repair minus the $500 deductible. I took the check instead, hired a guy to drive to another state find an identical door and transfer the interior of mine onto it. I ended up having an extra $1600 and my truck looks perfect. I used that money to do preventative maintenance and put it in in tip top condition. Certainly you can see how this scenario relates to a health care decision.

Difficult to estimate but a good guess would be at least 3 slices

Medicare is an extremely efficient program, with almost all revenue going directly to benefits.

Cutting it from $4.8 "slices" to 1.8 must surely mean massive cutbacks in services.

Fantastic after paying in for 50 years they break even. If on the other the money could have been invested at an extremely conservative 2.5% interest rate, it would literally double, thus the cost of SS could be cut in half. If we do the same with certain government pensions which combined with SS cost over 800 Billion per year.

We save 4 slices.

The total spending on SS is $7.8 "slices". You are cutting it by more than half.

If your cut applies only to the distant future after a complete reworking of the plan, it is basically irrelevant to the topic of this thread, and you don't get to claim those 4 slices. If it applies now, you are cutting payments to seniors in half.

Since I endorse many tax breaks ill assign -1 slices to this one.

In spite of record deficits, and in spite of taxes being at historically low levels, you want to lower them even further? That makes no sense to me.

Current policies are very restrictive I had a professor who used to scout out land for oil companies and despite being a bit of a eco-maniac (He lived in a house built of tires drank rain water only and was energy independent) He still reported that government policies regarding drilling where over the top. There are plenty of huge oil reserves in our own backyard and no serious effort has been made to open them up for drilling only political posturing and stump speeches have come out of washington,

1 slice for this is extremely conservative, there is enough oil in our land to make us independent for a long time lets tap it like crazy

This is totally irrelevant, as we are discussing how to cut government spending. Saying you will find us more oil is completely off the topic, so you can't claim this.

All of the last 8 presidents have claimed that they would work toward energy indpendence. All 8 have failed. How do you know your plan would succeed if they all failed?

Where is this oil you claim? I hear of ANWR, but that is only enough to fuel the world for 4 months. I hear of offshore areas where drilling is not allowed, but that is only enough to fuel the world for 8 months. If you are going to make a big impact on world oil supplies, you will need something much bigger than that. Where is it? What is your source that says this oil is available?

You want to drill, baby, drill. If only the black line in the graph below went upwards!

from The Oil Drum | With Gas So Cheap and Well Drilling Down, Why Is Gas Production So High?.

Oh wait. It is going up! We already tried "drill, baby, drill". It did not solve the problem. Got any other ideas how we will get more oil?

I don't see how any of this balances the budget. You won't get foreigners to pay for our bases, you can't cut 3.5 billion out of a 1.6 billion workfare budget, eliminating almost all Medicaid and Medicare spending is a mistake, you can't cut SS in half, and your energy plan is off topic.

So I am not seeing that this balances the budget.

 

[MacFall]

There are no laws against taking other currencies or precious metals

There are enormous capital gains taxes on everything that is not legal tender, it is illegal NOT to accept dollars for many transactions (that's what makes it legal tender), and whether it's legal or not they still put people in jail for representing specie as money (see: the Liberty Dollar.)

You know that inflation at a slow steady 3% is great for the economy deflation is bad.

I know that's what my statist econ professors tried to teach me. I say it's bull.

1% I doubt that

10%, I meant to say. That was a typo. But then, without controlling the money supply it's doubtful they could control the nation's media and education, and without that I doubt they could get many people to pay taxes anyway. So it might even be much smaller than that.

By the way the government doesn't make its own money it must borrow from the Federal Reserve.

When the government says jump the Fed asks how high. The Fed prints money whenever the government asks and for whatever purpose.

No, it doesn't fraudulently create money

Yes, it does. Here's how:

Imagine an economy with 1000 widgets produced daily and 1000 dollars in circulation. Widgets cost 1 dollar each. There are 100 people in the economy, each with 10 dollars. Everyone may get 10 widgets.

But then the bank creates 10 more dollars. It keeps one for itself, and gives the rest to 9 of its friends. When the market opens for the day, as far as everyone in the economy knows there is still 1 dollar for each widget, so they do not change the prices. If trade concludes early in the day, what happens is that the banker and his friends end up with 11 widgets each, benefiting from the new money they have created, and the next 80 buyers each get their widgets. But the last 10 to market find that their money buys fewer widgets. The very last may find that all the widgets have disappeared, and their money buys them nothing at all.

Money can be viewed as a title to a good. What happens is that the new money creates conflicting claims to goods. This is exactly why counterfeiting money is illegal - it fraudulently represents a claim to goods. If nobody ever lost anything when counterfeit occurred, counterfeiting would not be against the law. But when the government or its banking partner creates new money, the effect is exactly the same - the same amount of goods exist (at the moment of creation), but more claims to those goods exist. In a large economy it is easy to obscure this fact, but it still happens. More dollars chasing relatively few goods results in some people, who worked just as hard for their money, left holding money that is worth less when they spend it than it was when they worked for it.

it regulates the rate of inflation by adjusting the money supply; an essential part of maintaining a strong economy.

Here's what actually happens when the Fed "regulates" inflation.

In the example above, all the trade happened too quickly for prices to adjust. But that's not actually what happens.

After the banker and his friends buy their widgets - at a rate of 2 each - this sends a signal to widget sellers that demand for widgets has increased twofold. So they begin to raise their prices, anticipating the shortage that would otherwise occur, which I described above. The next people to market find that their 1 dollar no longer buys 1 widget - prices have been raised to, say, $1.10 per widget. They have to pull money out of savings in order to buy.

But at the end of the day, there are still not enough widgets to clear demand. People are left holding dollars that cannot buy widgets. This is called the Cantillon Effect, after the pre-classical economist who discovered it: when inflation occurs, the first to receive the money (or, in theory, the first to spend it if everyone were to receive it at once), enjoy the benefit of that money; but as prices adjust upwards to compensate for the increased apparent demand and to avoid shortages in supply, those coming later to market are left with money that buys less than it did before. One long term effect of this is to destroy savings; another is to encourage borrowing.

Your "Plan" would have wild and unpredictable gyrations to the money supply and wreak havoc on not only our economy, but the worlds.

It would have the opposite effect: it would fix the money supply. "Wild and unpredictable gyrations" are a perfect description for inflation.

Inflation causes the business cycle. To demonstrate how, look again at the running example.

The people looking at empty shelves in the widget store at the end of the day constitute unfilled demand, from the perspective of sellers. So they make more widgets the next time around, hence the idea of increases in money stimulating demand. However, the demand is not backed by actual productivity, so eventually, the producers will run into a problem: the economy has worked exactly hard enough to produce, and consume, 1000 widgets. There is, then, apparent demand for more widgets than the economy actually has the ability to produce.

This is where the example I've been using ceases to be useful. When we talk about an economy with only one good, the business cycle appears to be the result of "overinvestment". That would be the Keynesian criticism to this analysis, but of course "overinvestment" is not what actually happens. In fact the business cycle is the result of malinvestment - the direction of resources into enterprises that appear to be profitable, but which actually are not, in the long term. This is the "boom" - the surge in production in response to apparent demand. The "bust" is a necessary and inevitable correction, wherein projects that were unsustainable are abandoned, their assets liquidated, and moved into more sound areas of production.

This would be bad enough if that were the end of it, for as a result of the Cantillon Effect, those most closely connected to the banking/government complex receive improportionally more benefit from the new money than everyone else; and those who get the new money last not only do not benefit from it, but are robbed of the purchasing power of the money they already had. But that's not the end of it, because what happens is that the government inflates even more in response to the crisis, which only causes it to be prolonged and deepened, and the eventual and inevitable correction to be even more severe.

This analysis was applied, with much greater elucidation, to the Great Depression in a book by Dr. Murray Rothbard called America's Great Depression. Since you appear not to have been exposed to this theory before, I suggest you read it. You can find it here: (PDF/html)

On a slightly different topic, I note you have a Constitution Party symbol. Are you not aware that the legal tender laws that allow the Fed to function as it does are unconstitutional?

 

[bibleblevr]

repost

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There are enormous capital gains taxes on everything that is not legal tender, it is illegal NOT to accept dollars for many transactions (that's what makes it legal tender), and whether it's legal or not they still put people in jail for representing specie as money (see: the Liberty Dollar.)

I know that's what my statist econ professors tried to teach me. I say it's bull.

10%, I meant to say. That was a typo. But then, without controlling the money supply it's doubtful they could control the nation's media and education, and without that I doubt they could get many people to pay taxes anyway. So it might even be much smaller than that.

When the government says jump the Fed asks how high. The Fed prints money whenever the government asks and for whatever purpose.

Yes, it does. Here's how:

Imagine an economy with 1000 widgets produced daily and 1000 dollars in circulation. Widgets cost 1 dollar each. There are 100 people in the economy, each with 10 dollars. Everyone may get 10 widgets.

But then the bank creates 10 more dollars. It keeps one for itself, and gives the rest to 9 of its friends. When the market opens for the day, as far as everyone in the economy knows there is still 1 dollar for each widget, so they do not change the prices. If trade concludes early in the day, what happens is that the banker and his friends end up with 11 widgets each, benefiting from the new money they have created, and the next 80 buyers each get their widgets. But the last 10 to market find that their money buys fewer widgets. The very last may find that all the widgets have disappeared, and their money buys them nothing at all.

Money can be viewed as a title to a good. What happens is that the new money creates conflicting claims to goods. This is exactly why counterfeiting money is illegal - it fraudulently represents a claim to goods. If nobody ever lost anything when counterfeit occurred, counterfeiting would not be against the law. But when the government or its banking partner creates new money, the effect is exactly the same - the same amount of goods exist (at the moment of creation), but more claims to those goods exist. In a large economy it is easy to obscure this fact, but it still happens. More dollars chasing relatively few goods results in some people, who worked just as hard for their money, left holding money that is worth less when they spend it than it was when they worked for it.

Here's what actually happens when the Fed "regulates" inflation.

In the example above, all the trade happened too quickly for prices to adjust. But that's not actually what happens.

After the banker and his friends buy their widgets - at a rate of 2 each - this sends a signal to widget sellers that demand for widgets has increased twofold. So they begin to raise their prices, anticipating the shortage that would otherwise occur, which I described above. The next people to market find that their 1 dollar no longer buys 1 widget - prices have been raised to, say, $1.10 per widget. They have to pull money out of savings in order to buy.

But at the end of the day, there are still not enough widgets to clear demand. People are left holding dollars that cannot buy widgets. This is called the Cantillon Effect, after the pre-classical economist who discovered it: when inflation occurs, the first to receive the money (or, in theory, the first to spend it if everyone were to receive it at once), enjoy the benefit of that money; but as prices adjust upwards to compensate for the increased apparent demand and to avoid shortages in supply, those coming later to market are left with money that buys less than it did before. One long term effect of this is to destroy savings; another is to encourage borrowing.

It would have the opposite effect: it would fix the money supply. "Wild and unpredictable gyrations" are a perfect description for inflation.

Inflation causes the business cycle. To demonstrate how, look again at the running example.

The people looking at empty shelves in the widget store at the end of the day constitute unfilled demand, from the perspective of sellers. So they make more widgets the next time around, hence the idea of increases in money stimulating demand. However, the demand is not backed by actual productivity, so eventually, the producers will run into a problem: the economy has worked exactly hard enough to produce, and consume, 1000 widgets. There is, then, apparent demand for more widgets than the economy actually has the ability to produce.

This is where the example I've been using ceases to be useful. When we talk about an economy with only one good, the business cycle appears to be the result of "overinvestment". That would be the Keynesian criticism to this analysis, but of course "overinvestment" is not what actually happens. In fact the business cycle is the result of malinvestment - the direction of resources into enterprises that appear to be profitable, but which actually are not, in the long term. This is the "boom" - the surge in production in response to apparent demand. The "bust" is a necessary and inevitable correction, wherein projects that were unsustainable are abandoned, their assets liquidated, and moved into more sound areas of production.

This would be bad enough if that were the end of it, for as a result of the Cantillon Effect, those most closely connected to the banking/government complex receive improportionally more benefit from the new money than everyone else; and those who get the new money last not only do not benefit from it, but are robbed of the purchasing power of the money they already had. But that's not the end of it, because what happens is that the government inflates even more in response to the crisis, which only causes it to be prolonged and deepened, and the eventual and inevitable correction to be even more severe.

This analysis was applied, with much greater elucidation, to the Great Depression in a book by Dr. Murray Rothbard called America's Great Depression. Since you appear not to have been exposed to this theory before, I suggest you read it. You can find it here: (PDF/html)

On a slightly different topic, I note you have a Constitution Party symbol. Are you not aware that the legal tender laws that allow the Fed to function as it does are unconstitutional?

If we know so much about economics why do we have so many problems with our economy?

I do maintenance work in a large apartment building. I understand most of the systems there. When something doesn't work I fix it, and then it works again. It actually seems that the more money an 'expert' is paid and the grander their title the less able they are to do anything effectively. Whyzzat?

Maybe the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" are at work: "Keep 'em ignorant and confused." :o

 

[MacFall]

If we know so much about economics why do we have so many problems with our economy?

I do maintenance work in a large apartment building. I understand most of the systems there. When something doesn't work I fix it, and then it works again. It actually seems that the more money an 'expert' is paid and the grander their title the less able they are to do anything effectively. Whyzzat?

The difference is between a person who goes into business to complete voluntary acts of service in exchange for voluntary compensation, and a person who goes into "business" to control the lives of others and take their money by threat of force. The latter is likely to be subject to blinding hubris at best, and outright malice at worst.

Maybe the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" are at work: "Keep 'em ignorant and confused." :o

I'm pretty sure that work is a forgery, but some of the principles in it apply to politicians nevertheless.

 

[bibleblevr]

First off the numbers that I am using for the current size of government spending all come from this site, no particular reason for this one exept that it is well orginised and provides some helpful brake downs:
US Federal Budget FY13 Estimated Spending Breakdown - Pie Chart

Good luck getting foreigners to give us $300 billion to keep our bases open. Our bases are often seen as a threat. Many foreigners would gladly see them go. If we tell them we will close the bases unless thy pay us huge sums of money, I expect most will bid us goodbye.

Our bases do far more than protect foreign countries. They also enforce United States' interests overseas.

So unless you accept a major cutback in enforcing our interests overseas, I don't see you getting these 3 slices.

No, I think that the vast majority of countries do want us there and do recognise the economic advantage they gain by not having to raise a substantial army for themselves. Even if they wouldn't be reasonable enough to pay cost I bet we could at least receive a sizable contribution from them.

As for those countries that legitimately don't want us there, they would have to be examined on a case by case basis but some of them we may want to pull out of.

Maybe 3 slices is a bit optimistic but even 1 slice worth of foreign money flowing into our economy would reduce our trade deficit by around 20% which would strengthen the economy resulting a corresponding increased in tax revenue, but who knows how many slices that works out to,

Actually a Democrat instituted Workfare (Bill Clinton) and it has never been gutted. Can you give me a source that documents this gutting you refer to?

Medicare is an extremely efficient program, with almost all revenue going directly to benefits.

Cutting it from $4.8 "slices" to 1.8 must surely mean massive cutbacks in services.

Actually This would more likely mean a massive reduction in participants. I was talking to a guy just last week who told me that he is quitting his second job because he is "Making too much money" and with the food stamps and government assistance he received for his 7 kids he would break even staying at home. If Workfare was actually enacted with any ferocity this wouldn't be (Barring the possibility that some of these services where solely state funded.)

Yes Willy did something right! Just goes to show that democrats aren't always bad. However the Bill itself was part of the Republican made "Contract with America". As for it being gutted, I don't remember where I read about this however I know that there is now a waiver program that would allow states to avoid this if they meet certain employment requirements.

However my biggest problem with the bill was that from its onset if allowed for people to collect benefits for 2 years before requiring work. I was told that this was a across the aisle compromise also, regardless, I think maybe 2 weeks would be more appropriate.

I am cutting form Medicare and Medicaid a total of 846 billion not 480. Yes Medicare is "efficient" in that it demands lower prices from hospitals and requires little in administration costs, however the root of the problem is the lack of price evaluation by the consumer, so there are still goods and services demanded that would not have been had they been using only their own money in the form of a healthcare savings account.

The total spending on SS is $7.8 "slices". You are cutting it by more than half.

If your cut applies only to the distant future after a complete reworking of the plan, it is basically irrelevant to the topic of this thread, and you don't get to claim those 4 slices. If it applies now, you are cutting payments to seniors in half.
.

Yes I am cutting it in half eventually, but it will take time to reap the rewards since we need to pay our seniors now. This doesn't solve the deficit today but down the road.

In spite of record deficits, and in spite of taxes being at historically low levels, you want to lower them even further? That makes no sense to me..

Corporate income taxes are some of the highest in the world in the US. This drives out businesses. A tax break here is meant to stimulate economic growth and with a stronger economy, tax revenue naturally increases. it is a negative pie slice for today and will hopefully pay dividends in the future.

This is totally irrelevant, as we are discussing how to cut government spending. Saying you will find us more oil is completely off the topic, so you can't claim this.

All of the last 8 presidents have claimed that they would work toward energy indpendence. All 8 have failed. How do you know your plan would succeed if they all failed?

Where is this oil you claim? I hear of ANWR, but that is only enough to fuel the world for 4 months. I hear of offshore areas where drilling is not allowed, but that is only enough to fuel the world for 8 months. If you are going to make a big impact on world oil supplies, you will need something much bigger than that. Where is it? What is your source that says this oil is available?.

Oil production and all energy production has much to do with the strength of the economy which determines potential tax revenue.

Yes I mean offshore and ANWR and just those with a combined 12 months worth of oil for the world amount to about 30 billion barrels of oil (CIA factbook states the world produces 84.82 million barrels per day so times 365) if it is sold at 100$ per barrel and is taxed in total only 10% (Which taxes on gas can be way higher then this but lets work with easy numbers) this is an additional 300 billion dollars in revenue likely more since most of this land is federally owned, rights to it would be sold at a hefty price to the energy companies.


Most of the things I suggest are not going to balance the budget this year or the next nor should we attempt to do this all at once these are longer term proposals

 

[doubtingmerle]

Bibleblevr, you have some ideas on how to balance the budget in the long term, but the purpose of this thread was more about what to do in the short term. There are those who blame Obama for the deficit. These same people want to raise military spending and cut taxes. If you do that, then how can we balance the budget? If there is not an acceptable means to do what they demand, then they are asking the impossible.

Now lets look at your ideas.

No, I think that the vast majority of countries do want us there and do recognise the economic advantage they gain by not having to raise a substantial army for themselves. Even if they wouldn't be reasonable enough to pay cost I bet we could at least receive a sizable contribution from them.

Overseas military bases are there as base points for military action anywhere overseas as needed. They are not there specifically to defend the country they are built in, but as a means to support any future military action in any nearby country. Who exactly will pay for these bases in your plan? The host country is often irritated with the existing bases. And many nearby countries see it more of a threat to there interests than as a help. See The Pentagon's New Generation of Secret Military Bases | Mother Jones and NYU Press - The Bases of Empire .

You are welcome to pass the hat and see what donations you get from foreign countries.

If it was that easy, I suspect it would have been done long ago.

I am cutting form Medicare and Medicaid a total of 846 billion not 480. Yes Medicare is "efficient" in that it demands lower prices from hospitals and requires little in administration costs, however the root of the problem is the lack of price evaluation by the consumer, so there are still goods and services demanded that would not have been had they been using only their own money in the form of a healthcare savings account.

But what of those seniors who have no money to put into healthcare savings account? And what if they get very sick and have not saved enough? In your plan they die, yes?

Most Americans prefer to keep Medicare. It is actually quite efficient at controlling costs.

Yes I am cutting it in half [Social Security] eventually, but it will take time to reap the rewards since we need to pay our seniors now. This doesn't solve the deficit today but down the road.

What we might do eventually is beyond the scope of this thread.

I fear that your plan would leave many seniors out in the cold if their investments went bad, or if they lived far into retirement and needed continued income.

Corporate income taxes are some of the highest in the world in the US. This drives out businesses. A tax break here is meant to stimulate economic growth and with a stronger economy, tax revenue naturally increases. it is a negative pie slice for today and will hopefully pay dividends in the future.

That is a valid point for consideration.

But would it not be better if all countries agreed to raise their corporate rates instead of racing to the bottom?

But again, taxes as a percent of GDP are at the lowest they have been since WWII, and deficits are out of sight. Shouldn't we raise personal income taxes, especially on the wealthy, back closer to where they historically have been? If it doesn't make sense to raise corporate rates, aren't there other rates we could raise?

Oil production and all energy production has much to do with the strength of the economy which determines potential tax revenue.

Yes I mean offshore and ANWR and just those with a combined 12 months worth of oil for the world amount to about 30 billion barrels of oil (CIA factbook states the world produces 84.82 million barrels per day so times 365) if it is sold at 100$ per barrel and is taxed in total only 10% (Which taxes on gas can be way higher then this but lets work with easy numbers) this is an additional 300 billion dollars in revenue likely more since most of this land is federally owned, rights to it would be sold at a hefty price to the energy companies.

Remember it costs a lot to produce that oil. It is not all profit. And there could be huge environmental impacts. Be sure to subtract all the lost profits anticipated in fishing when you add in the profits expected from oil.

And oil wells generally produce for about 50 years. So your $300 billion is divided by 50 years, or about $6 billion a year for the next 50 years. That's good, but compared to the deficit, its peanuts.

And if we drill for that oil now, it will be gone. Might it not be better to save it for our children? If we use it all, where in the heck are they going to drill?

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Corporate income taxes are some of the highest in the world in the US. This drives out businesses.

You mean like these corporations?

The first number is their tax rate for 2008-2011
Pepco Holdings –39.5% <--yes, that's a MINUS sign)
General Electric –18.9%
PG&E Corp. –18.4%
Wisconsin Energy –13.2%
NiSource –13.0%
Paccar –13.0%
Integrys Energy Group –11.6%
CenterPoint Energy –11.3%
Atmos Energy –9.6%
Tenet Healthcare –8.2%
American Electric Power –6.4%
Boeing –5.5%
Ryder System –5.4%
Con-way –5.4%
Verizon Communications –3.8%
Duke Energy –3.5%
Interpublic Group –2.5%
NextEra Energy –2.0%
CMS Energy –1.4%
Navistar International –1.3%
Consolidated Edison –1.3%
Mattel –0.9%
El Paso –0.9%
Baxter International –0.6%
Apache –0.3%
Corning –0.2%
DTE Energy 0.2% <--OHMYGOSH! A POSITIVE TAX RATE!
Honeywell International 2.0%
Wells Fargo 3.8%
DuPont 10.9%

(SOURCE)

So is the answer to give them more money? Because almost all of those were negative tax rates.

How horrible it must be to be a major corporation in the US!

A tax break here is meant to stimulate economic growth and with a stronger economy, tax revenue naturally increases. it is a negative pie slice for today and will hopefully pay dividends in the future.

Why aren't we reaping just oodles of benefits from all these negative tax rates up there?

 

[someguy14]

Oh, I see.

Even if we assume every American gets 100 paychecks a year, that comes out to 300 million people x $ 100 /person = $30 billion per year. In order to balance the budget we need $1300 billion per year.

And please note that balancing the budget means nothing as far as paying off the debt. All that means is that we stop borrowing.

Adding new revenue of $30 billion per year means that, instead of accumulating $1,300 billion in new debt every year, we now would accumulate $1,270 billion in additional debt each year.

You have to agree paying off debt is a step ahead in the right direction. Counsel in your head how debt occurs and then eliminate the problem. It is easy.

 

[someguy14]

If you are on this "sinking boat" against your will, why not leave? There are plenty of other countries to choose from.

Only God is perfect. Forgive.

 

[someguy14]

LOWER PRICES. Believe in it or not, that chain theory is correct when applied correctly to a logical mind. "Your only as strong as your weakest link". All people should be taken care of financially. Regardless of race, gender, nation or personality. All were created in the image of God. The earth supplies enough for all to partake in the blessings God has given.

Matthew 23:13
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

God is greater.

 

[someguy14]

Oh, I see.

Even if we assume every American gets 100 paychecks a year, that comes out to 300 million people x $ 100 /person = $30 billion per year. In order to balance the budget we need $1300 billion per year.

And please note that balancing the budget means nothing as far as paying off the debt. All that means is that we stop borrowing.

Adding new revenue of $30 billion per year means that, instead of accumulating $1,300 billion in new debt every year, we now would accumulate $1,270 billion in additional debt each year.

God is good. The sun shines on the righteous and the wicked.

Can man let go of selfish accumilations in order to help all mankind...Of course. Does greedy selfish man lusting after his/her own decide to keep for themselves regardless of who suffers...of course. GIVE! GIVE! GIVE! All should have enough.

It is written:
John 16:33
These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

The time is now. Give all that you have, believe in the Gospel, for the time will come when it is too late. Repent, and love one another. Unserstand that all deserve the blessings from God and give freely, with a cheerful heart. For this earth and it's problems are temporary, God is eternal. God is all the good.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You have to agree paying off debt is a step ahead in the right direction. Counsel in your head how debt occurs and then eliminate the problem. It is easy.

Debt occurs because we spend more than we take in.

Last year we sent $1300 billion more than we took in. If you want to eliminate all additional debt, than next year we need to take 13 $100 billion "slices" out of spending and/or increased revenue. The point of this thread is that this is not easy. If you think it is easy, then tell us please, where would you take those 13 slices.

And those 13 slices are only to balance the budget. They do nothing -- nothing!--to pay off the existing debt. If you want to pay off the debt this fiscal year as fast as we added to it last year, you need to find 26 slices.

You tell us it is easy, but I don't see where you take those 26 slices.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Only God is perfect. Forgive.

I forgive.

You understand that in this case the man claims that he is in the United States against his will. The obvious solution, if he doesn't want to be here, is to leave. However, I find out now that he is against the entire concept of nation states, and wants to live somewhere where there are no nations. Perhaps he could find his own island somewhere in the Pacific, I don't know. That is a rather difficult request to fulfill.

 

[AceHero]

The MID is incredibly regressive. The truly poor can never take advantage of it. The rich can abuse the heck out of it. And for the middle class the true effect of the MID is to artificially raise the price of homes making people take on more debt just to buy a home.

And it basically penalizes people who choose not to buy, like those renting apartments.

The charitable giving deduction is also ill-conceived. We don't let people choose where their tax dollars get spent - so why let people avoid taxes by picking and choosing where their charity gets spent. Every dollar you put into charity takes money out of the tax system that otherwise pays for the welfare of all.

I'm not saying end charity - you can still give. Just don't erode the tax base by letting people pick the causes they deem special.

It's nice to get a little refund, but that shouldn't be the main reason you're donating your money or things.

In other words you would continue the current energy policies? We have been drilling, baby, drilling, and encouraging alternatives. The last 8 Presidents have all promised energy independence. Nothing to see here, folks. Keep moving. http://www.christianforums.com/t7695896/

Current policies are very restrictive I had a professor who used to scout out land for oil companies and despite being a bit of a eco-maniac (He lived in a house built of tires drank rain water only and was energy independent) He still reported that government policies regarding drilling where over the top. There are plenty of huge oil reserves in our own backyard and no serious effort has been made to open them up for drilling only political posturing and stump speeches have come out of washington,

1 slice for this is extremely conservative, there is enough oil in our land to make us independent for a long time lets tap it like crazy

And what happens when it runs out? We're back to square one.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I find many of the answers here surprising. 11% of the people here say they are willing to cut veterans benefits by 78%! 11% don't want us to take any $100 billion step listed, even though we add $1300 billion to the total debt each year.

And 11% of the people want only cutbacks, and don't want to increase government revenues by 4% (even though government income as a percent of GDP is at a historic low, and debt is out of control).

And surprisingly 29% say they want America to partially default on its loans, and not pay back all the interest it owes on trhe money it borrowed.

This last response is most dramatic in the response of McFall, who recommends this default on our loans, knowing full well the consequences.

So the government borrows trillions, and you want them to pay back only part of it?

They're going to crash and burn either way. I just want to make sure that the way in which it happens is the way that will be the least harmful to those of us whom they want to pay for their mistakes.

The United States is going to crash and burn anyway, so let's just default on our loans? This has to be one of the most depressing views of America that I have seen.

Why would that be preferable to a little belt-tightening and the continued existance of America?

Some people would say that would lead to a collapse of the dollar and global trade. How do you answer them?

I'd say they're right. Better start building an alternative system. Some of us, at least, are smart enough not to keep our liquidity in dollars or any other government-manipulated currency.

Wow! So you express that you have no problem taking steps that will totally destroy the trust in the United States dollar, and lead to a collapse of international trade. And that is OK with you, because you keep your liquidity in something other than dollars?

Sir, if there is a total collapse of the dollar, you might be able to show up at the grocery store with a handfull of gold coins that you saved back, but it is doubtful that you will find many groceries on the shelves. Then what will you do? Eat the gold coins?

I would think it would be better to prevent the collapse of the dollar.

Sounds like anarchy to me.

This is something you want?

Was my avatar not a clue? Yes, anarchy is generally something anarchists want. But I suspect you and I mean very different things by the word "anarchy".

OK, so you want anarcy, but you suspect yoiu mean something different by "anarchy" than what I mean when I say "anarchy".

OK, I'll bite. Tell me, please, what do you mean when you say you want "anarchy"? What would life be like under the "anarchy" you want?

 

[MacFall]

The United States is going to crash and burn anyway, so let's just default on our loans? This has to be one of the most depressing views of America that I have seen.

Why would that be preferable to a little belt-tightening and the continued existance of America?

Because I consider "America", by which I mean the political apparatus associated with the United States government and the doctrines by which it functions to be entirely corrupt and unworthy of existence.

So you express that you have no problem taking steps that will totally destroy the trust in the United States dollar, and lead to a collapse of international trade. And that is OK with you, because you keep your liquidity in something other than dollars?

It's not "OK with me". It just has to happen, regardless of how anyone feels about it. It's been probable since 1913 and inevitable since 1971. Debts come due, and the plain fact is we do not have enough real wealth in the entire world to sustain the debt that we have now. Massive liquidation and deep restructuring are an eventuality. The question is when and how, not whether, it will happen.

The fact that economic correction is politically unpopular is why it has taken so long to happen, as one administration has been pushing it off on the next by creating further debt, further stretching out the capital structure in unsustainable directions. What needs to happen is for it to contract and then begin expansion anew in a sustainable way.

It's as if we've been drinking poison for a century and now our quack doctor politicians are trying to prevent us from vomiting it up at any cost.

Sir, if there is a total collapse of the dollar, you might be able to show up at the grocery store with a handfull of gold coins that you saved back, but it is doubtful that you will find many groceries on the shelves. Then what will you do? Eat the gold coins?

I do not only keep my liquidity in alternatives to the dollar, I also promote those alternatives in the hopes that others will do likewise. A dollar crisis may be inevitable, but it is possible for us to build alternative markets that will be, if not immune, then at least resistant to the effects of the crisis. Such alternative markets must be based on alternative currencies that are not tied to the dollar and therefore cannot be devalued through the creation of further debt by the Federal Reserve and other central banks.

"Build the new society within the shell of the old".

I would think it would be better to prevent the collapse of the dollar.

It would have been better to have prevented the collapse of the dollar, in the past tense. But that would have required a Federal government that did not have the power to debt-finance social programs and massive wars throughout the 20th century, which unfortunately was too great a temptation.

And the FedGov is not going to give up that power now, even at the cusp of its own destruction. The process they have used to temporarily escape political responsibility for their excess will ultimately result in the complete collapse of their edifice. As Lewis wrote in That Hideous Strength, "Their own strength has betrayed them. They have gone to the gods who would not have come to them, and pulled down deep heaven on their heads."

But we need not go down with them.

OK, I'll bite. Tell me, please, what do you mean when you say you want "anarchy"? What would life be like under the "anarchy" you want?

You and I cannot plunder, threaten, and assault one another in order to attempt to make either ourselves or others be more moral, prosperous, or secure. Neither should anyone else be permitted to, regardless of what title or office they hold. To anarchists, anarchy doesn't mean "no rules"; it means "no masters". No masters, and no slaves. No legal privilege giving another person a presumed greater claim to your life and your livelihood than you have yourself.

As a libertarian I believe that this means an absolute prohibition against all force and the threat thereof, except for that which is used in proportional response to impending or prior violence. As a Christian I believe that it means the adoption of the Golden Rule as a social ethic. Nobody wants to be coerced and disrespected. Nobody wants to have their choices overridden by others. And nobody wants to be treated harshly for their mistakes. Therefore they should not advocate that anyone else be treated in those ways, regardless of the goal they mean to achieve.

Of course I do not believe that this will happen overnight, or even likely within my lifetime. But I do believe that I can help to make gains toward it; and being there to help provide a means of escape when the current political system collapses under the sheer weight of its own arrogance is one of those gains.