How would you fix the deficit?

In addition to mad slashing, I would abolish legal tender laws and encourage businesses to accept money that cannot be manipulated by the government (precious metals, bitcoin, etc), effectively destroying the government's ability to spend on deficit anymore.

doubtingmerle said:

Here. Take this ax. This is your dream job. Slice away at the federal budget until you are happy. Where do you end up at?

I divided things into $100 billion slices for convenience.

After you decided where you can take at least $100B in the poll above, you can decide if you would take more slices than that out of any one category in an effort to balance the budget. In fiscal year 2012 (which ended Sept 30, 2012) we had a $1300 billion deficit. If you want to balance the budget you need to find thirteen $100 B slices. You could, for instance, ask for 2 slices out of defense, and 5.5 out of social security, and add 5.5 slices to revenue to balance the budget.

Here are the projected totals for last year. Obviously you cannot take more out of any category than what was spent last year.

Defense $716,300 7.2 slices
Health/ Medicaid $361,625 3.6 slices
Medicare $484,486 4.8 slices
Income Security (foodstamps, welfare, etc) $451,937 4.5 slices
Social Security $778,574 7.8 slices
Veterans benefits $129,605 1.3 slices
Interest on debt $224,784 2.2 slices
Everything else $648,236 6.5 slices

Me? I would take about 2 slices out of defense and add about 5 slices to revenue this year. That isn't near to a balanced budget, but we need to approach this gradually. What would you do? Eventually I would like to see the budget balanced, mainly by cutting defense and adding revenue.

The source data is here: Historical Tables | The White House .

Click to expand...

I think it'd make a BIG difference if spending was taken away substantially from the privatization of prison systems (the prison industrial complex ) since BILLIONS of dollars are placed there alongside many others - often unjustly - since prison is a business and many BIG Businesses cash in on it. And as long as much in the way of financial support is going toward that, there'll be less funding for other necessary things ...with others trying to "fix" that by taking away from programs that need to be funded for the benefit of those in need/destitute (i.e. widows, orphans, disabled, veterans, elderly, etc.) when it comes to social welfare programs - predominately the ones focused on Welfare Reform and doing well. The Prison-Industrial complex is doing much damage to the nation on so many levels and it needs to end...as Michelle Alexander noted wisely.

Other scholars, such as Dr. Boyce Watkins, have said that President OBama is Fueling the Prison Industrial Complex.

However, the proposed increase spending by the Obama Administration will be mostly used for much-needed ex-felon reëntry programs per the Second Chance Act signed into law on April 9, 2008. Moreover, the increased spending will also target the mentally ill caught-up in the judicial system, by introducing more diversion programs. And of the 2 million or so people incarcerated in America, a significant number of them are mentally ill - with it seeming to be the case that President Obama'S administration is attempting to reduce the number of individuals who would ordinarily be incarcerated by the 40-year-long failed drug war.

According to the White House:
It isn't a negative thing seeking to help men and women transition back into society upon release from prison, nor is it negative to attempt filling prisons/jails with others providing services for the mentally ill. But to address the issues from the root as it concerns the ways prison is being a privatized industry and many are denied education and punished as a result with prison ...those things must be faced head -on. And although President Obama has sought to address the issue in various ways, from Responsible Fatherhood Programs (more shared here, here, here and here) to reforming the Educational System, much more work is needed.


For other articles on the issue:

• The Economics of Incarceration By Nile Bowie
• We have the military industrial complex and we have the prison industrial complex
• Profit Driven Prison Industrial Complex: The Economics of Incarceration in the USA
• Best of TomDispatch: Michelle Alexander, The Age of Obama as a Racial Nightmare ...
• Start Debating the Prison-Industrial Complex by Ralph Nader + Professional Prisoners in Russia

That said, on a side note, I think some things need to be kept in place like certain regulations. I agree with others who've noted that the record , as evidenced by this report, is that Obama has benefitted U.S. citizens with regulation, primarily through environmental regulations. President Obama has recognized that the inadequacy of demand is the principal barrier to growth and has sought to bolster both public- and private-sector demand since becoming president. And recent work by the IMF has confirmed the premise of his policies: namely, that at a time when short-term interest rates are at zero, fiscal policies are especially potent. The president has also respected the independence of the Federal Reserve as it has sought to respond creatively to the challenge of increasing demand even with short-term interest rates zeroed out. And he has put the economy on track to nearly doubling exports over five years through a series of measures, such as increasing government support for exporters. He has made clear his commitment to taking advantage of current low interest rates to finance public investment and protect public-sector jobs, and to continue to promote US exports.

Additionally, President Obama has embraced the principles, though not all the details, of the famous Simpson-Bowles commission report on budget deficits. Like the large group of CEOs who made a major statement on deficit reduction awhile ago, he insists that achieving sustainable finance means both containing spending (especially on entitlements) and raising revenue. The budget that he has put forward has been thoroughly audited by the Congressional Budget Office, and puts the U.S. debt-GDP ratio on a declining path within this decade. And he has made clear that in negotiations with willing partners, he is prepared to go beyond his current budget proposals to assure that debt is contained.

People may be surprised by the economic growth that is steadily occurring and the things the president has sought to make possible despite the numerous challenges set forth. As another wisely noted (for brief excerpt):

doubtingmerle said:

And you would force them to cut what exactly? That is the topic of this thread. What will we cut?

Click to expand...

EVERYTHING.

Are you hoping for massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare? Are you hoping the government default on its loans, and does not pay what it owes in interest, as many have voted for here?

Click to expand...

Yes, I am hoping the government defaults on its loans. That would be an admission of failure by the government, and a humble government is less dangerous than an arrogant government, the latter of which would inflate more and more, and eventually destroy the entire economy before admitting to fault.

And with that federal budget how much is left for the military? You would defend America with what? Spitballs?

Click to expand...

The >60 million gun-owning Americans probably have more than spitballs at their disposal. Military hardware can devolve to state-level and to local institutions who are better suited to run a defense program than the US government, which hasn't given a crap about your or my defense for about a century at this point, and mostly uses its military for hegemonic control of the world, setting up friendly dictators, and killing brown people on their own soil whom they designate as "terrorists" for disliking aforementioned dictators and having weapons.

doubtingmerle said:

OK, so you would raise taxes on everybody making more than $90K? You are very close to what I suggested here-- http://www.christianforums.com/t7684632/ -- where I suggested a slight raise in taxes for single taxpayers making over $86K and a much higher raise in taxes for multi-millionaires.

Click to expand...

Yes. Everyone except the very poor should contribute. We're all in the same sinking boat and everyone needs to grab a bucket and help bail.

LOL, screw that. I was impressed onto this sinking boat against my will.

doubtingmerle said:

Private businesses are making vast amounts of money running prisons to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders. This represents a huge waste of money. .

Click to expand...

It also provides cheap labor for a lot of private businesses, who use prisoners to do free jobs that undercut other businesses and those prisoners never benefit from it in the long - term ..similar to the ways others complain on things being too much for the budget when it comes to immigration reform - and yet say nothing as it concerns other immigrants doing the jobs not many others (if anyone else ) does since those jobs are considered at the bottom...and yet without them, a lot of things would break apart.

Someone once said to me that folks have no problem with a Latino worker who's in the Hotel cleaning or placing chocolate on your bed once they get things taken care of - or cutting the grass and doing construction....but the moment they are able to become equals living in the same neighborhoods of employers and actually have significant representation, that's when you hear complaints - and silence on the ways prisons are locking up immigrants at rapid rates (often without representation ) and having no problem wasting a lot of money for prisons set up to house immigrants/keep them there while still benefiting from the labor they do - both within and outside of prison.

We have the money for a lot of things...but because the priorities aren't right in other areas, it messes up the entire equation

You leave off one way that closes the gap very quickly. Eliminate the Mortgage Interest Deduction and the Charitable Giving deduction.

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.

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.

doubtingmerle said:

And with that federal budget how much is left for the military? You would defend America with what? Spitballs?

Click to expand...

Maybe a misunderstanding, tax an extra $1 from every paycheck until the deficit is paid off.

doubtingmerle said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

doubtingmerle said:

OK, so you want massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare?

By what percent would grandma's Social Security check decrease if you had your way? 50% of more?

Click to expand...

My grandma can take care of herself quite capably, mostly because she was wise enough not to depend on the largesse of my generation for her old age. I'd be perfectly willing to help those who were not so wise. No need to get the government to put a gun in my back to do it.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

Sounds like anarchy to me.

This is something you want?

Click to expand...

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".

doubtingmerle said:

bibleblevr, you propose a "good start" rather then state how much you would reduce where. I would be interested in knowing how many "slices" you would like to take out of each area. Let's look at your "good start".

Click to expand...

Defence 3 slices
Workfare 3.5 slices
Healthcare 3 slices
SS 4 slices
Energy 1 slice
Taxation -1 slices

Total 13.5 slices

doubtingmerle said:

Are you saying to force other countries to pay for our protection, or asking for donations, or selling worldwide police services?

Forcing them to pay is taxation without representation and wrong.

Asking for donations isn't going to get us much.

Selling police services is a good idea, but its difficult to see how our military would keep things safe only for those who pay. How much do you think this would save?

I prefer a global scale back in military.

Click to expand...

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

doubtingmerle said:

Workfare already is the law, and has been for 2 decades.

Putting everybody to work is a good idea. How exactly do you plan to do that?

Click to expand...

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

doubtingmerle said:

In other words you are eliminating Medicare as we know it. This would be hugely unpopular, and would surely leave many seniors uncovered.

Out of state insurance and malpractice were covered at http://www.christianforums.com/t7675968/ .

Click to expand...

Yes, eliminate it 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

doubtingmerle said:

I don't think we have a pyramid system. Most people break even in that they get about as much out of Social Security as they would have had if they had left the money to accumulate interest in their own account. Social Security, allows those who live longer to have more secure finances, and that is a good thing.

Click to expand...

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.

doubtingmerle said:

What is "unproductive"? Movies? Sports? Vacations? I don't think government should be deciding what is "unproductive" and adding taxes based on what they don't like.

Taxing advertising would probably be a death sentence for newspapers and free TV, and much free content on the Internet.

Click to expand...

Certainly I already admitted that this definition would be difficult but it is obvious that if the government must tax something it ought to lean on the side of taxing junk food and cigarettes over say the building of a wind farm, I feel like this is common sense.

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

doubtingmerle said:

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/

Click to expand...

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

MacFall said:

In addition to mad slashing, I would abolish legal tender laws and encourage businesses to accept money that cannot be manipulated by the government (precious metals, bitcoin, etc), effectively destroying the government's ability to spend on deficit anymore.

Click to expand...

What!

1 How exactly would you "Encourage" businesses to take this currency?
2 Is there any government of Fed oversight of these currencies, why can't these be manipulated?
3 Explain why your system would prevent the government from borrowing and running a deficit, can't they still sell bonds and T-certs regardless if they are sold for dollars, bitcoins or buttons?

4 You do know that the Fed manipulates our currency and it is not part of the Government what is your issue with the Fed?

bibleblevr said:

What!

1 How exactly would you "Encourage" businesses to take this currency?

Click to expand...

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

2 Is there any government of Fed oversight of these currencies, why can't these be manipulated?

Click to expand...

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

3 Explain why your system would prevent the government from borrowing and running a deficit, can't they still sell bonds and T-certs regardless if they are sold for dollars, bitcoins or buttons?

Click to expand...

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.

4 You do know that the Fed manipulates our currency and it is not part of the Government what is your issue with the Fed?

Click to expand...

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.