English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

currently US President George W Bush has submitted a $2.9 trillion budget to Congress including almost $700bn in new military spending. He predicted a deficit in the year to October 1 2007 of $244bn. Seems like a quick subtraction... 244 B out of the Iraq thing might actually stop the deficit an maybe we could start paying on the 10 trillion we owe.

2007-02-05 07:32:45 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

10 answers

I would limit spending on every non-entitlement program. Allow each program to increase by 2% nominal dollars and not add any new programs - if the agency wants to do something different, it has to come at the expense of something else.

If you leave tax rates alone, tax revenue should increase at a rate about 3-4X that. So outside of the entitlement programs, if you simply did this you'd run a surplus that could be used to buy back Treasurys.

You then need to solve the entitlement programs and that's a lot more difficult. But consider, if the rest of the budget is at a surplus, interest rates should come down and you could float long term bonds for a while.

What scares me is that some people who for political reasons won't admit to the fact that tax revenue is way up since the Bush tax cuts and that the Laffer Curve has in fact proven itself out are missing the other side of the equation - that you cannot solve the problem from the revenue side - that you can't keep raising spending levels and just assume you can "raise taxes" back to 1970s levels and "pay for it." It doesn't work that way. Once you admit that tax revenue is up following and because of the tax rate cut, the necessary corollary is that a tax rate HIKE won't get you much, if anything, of a revenue boost, and could cost revenue - meaning the answer HAS to come from the spending side.

2007-02-05 08:23:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Balancing the budget is really not that hard, just very political.
1) Pull out of Iraq. That would save a ton of tax dollars.
2) Repeal tax cuts to millionaires by Bush. This puts more money toward debt.
3)Reduce the budget. Defense, education, social services and other programs are rife with corruption and waste.
4)Revamp Social Security. Stop removing it for individuals after 50k a year and make that ceiling retroactive. Now more people are covered and the program is more solvent. Place the program in a slow-growth mutual that returns a small but consistent interest. Now it's even better.
5)Promote job growth. People with better jobs pay more taxes and keep money in the country.
6)Close the tax loop holes. Now millionaires have to pay their fair share.
7)Place tariffs on foreign trade in the US. This safeguards our businesses and produces revenue.
8)Legalize marijuana. Now thousands of jailed Americans can go get jobs and make money instead of being a tax burden.
9)Promote industry. Farmers and manufacturers need a market to sell food and products. Their success produces tax revenue that further reduces debt.
10) Safe recovery of domestic resources. This mean less fuel we have to purchase from foreign nations, less kickbacks to oil companies, more money to reduce debt or feed other programs.

That's ten things to start. Bush will use none of them. He doesn't care.

2007-02-05 09:00:33 · answer #2 · answered by Frank L 2 · 1 0

at first one desires to understand the NO president has ever balanced the federal funds. human beings confuse what the federal funds procedure really is. it is no longer something more effective than no longer busting the funds as approved with assistance from congress. Do you be conscious the outfitted in threat-free practices of this? each and every of the federal authorities has to do (and the president has little or no to with with it in any respect), is inflate the funds by purple meat projection and performance it approved then turn round and declare "we stayed interior of funds, so we balanced. it truly is the actuality. not in any respect can we've a balanced funds because the introduction of the Civil war. We take care of a nationwide debt. We owe, so we are no longer contained in the black, we are nevertheless contained in the purple. So please clarify to me how Clinton "balanced the funds" for the reason that even he went over the approved congressional funds costs? Ohhh, yet we had a particular consultation to attain acclaim for this that or the different, causing the funds to be inflated to cover the cost. No diverse than using a mastercard. and also you call that a funds procedure. it is similar to you having $500 on your cheking account and also you want extra, or you'd be writing a warm examine. So, you bypass to the monetary company and get overdraft threat-free practices, and now you're lined. problem is you nevertheless owe the money. Clintons "Balanced funds" claims were no longer something more effective than a political ruse devoid of complications swallowed with assistance from a large team of human beings which have self belief borrowed funds equates to balancing a funds.

2016-11-02 09:59:03 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

The 535 legislators who make up Congress are out of control when it comes to spending. One benefit to deficits is that it makes it more difficult for Congress to spend more.
We are not in Iraq because of money. We are there for numerous reasons. Pulling out of Iraq may not save any money. The US still has to pay the soldiers, buy equipment, do training, and re-deploy men and material.
If Iraq collapsed into total chaos after we pulled out, it would be more costly and difficult to return to try to get things under control.

Presidents and Congresses in the past have tried to control spending, always without success. Money is power. Tax money spending means votes. Try to come up with a way to reward government officials for saving money, and you will have the solution to an eternal problem.

2007-02-05 07:51:24 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0 0

Import less and export more.
The key factor to the deficits in the American budget is the trade deficit. In short America imports way much more goods then it exports.

So if America is to get a balance budget it as to raise tariffs on foreign goods. It will stop the Americans from buying almost everything abroad and it will help American industries catch up with the foreign competition.

America's manufacturing sector is in decay it needs help.

2007-02-05 08:12:25 · answer #5 · answered by Jeronimo 4 · 1 0

Half our OUR taxes they spend on the war machine,I would get that machine, oil it, refine it, take some nonworking parts off it, stop the development of new parts, till their truly needed.cut the spending in half,then their you have it,enough for universal health care.roads.bridges.homeless shelters, job placement.homes for people not apartments,college for all.& so much more this could be a wonderful society,with the money saved on all the military waste,Simple.we have about 5000 nukes, no country is going to attack us.& IF they did. we would turn them all into dust.NO need for half our taxes going to war.since were such a peaceful country, ha ha ha ha

2007-02-05 07:46:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Equal percentage cuts across the board.

There is a tremendous amount of waste in governmental offices. They spend like drunken sailors near the end of the budget year so their budgets won't get cut for the next year.

2007-02-05 07:39:44 · answer #7 · answered by Sean 7 · 1 1

Stop paying the retired congressman for life unless they put in 25 to 30 years the way we have to. They can be in congress 2 - 4 years and get retirement and medical benefits for life.

2007-02-05 07:39:07 · answer #8 · answered by Lou 6 · 0 2

Raise taxes on the super rich. They've been riding the gravy train with a republican congress, its time for them to pay up.

2007-02-05 07:40:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Get rid of Bush.....he favors the Wealthy

2007-02-05 07:38:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers