How to fix the US National Debt

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is a growing fear that the US will face an impending doom of the debt is not lowered.

Many economists and government accounting agencies are warning that the debt will hurt not only the US, but the market, global investments, resources, commodities, and other currencies tied to or in trade relations to the USD.

I would like a non partisan, individual-thinking approach on how we can fix this thing, because if the US goes; China, GB, Germany, Russia, Japan, and the rest of the world will face a greater depression than in 1929.


NOTE: No flames. Do not blame Bush, Obama, Regan or anyone else about this. Do not go 'too political' in your rhetoric. If it becomes too much, I give permission to Reynod to cease and desist this thread.


Thank You.

Dogman.
 
Cut costs, no new spending, and - unfortunately - moderate tax increases.

The problem is that all of our Congresscritters are talking about "reducing the deficit". That means we are still going into debt, just not as fast.
 
^ You do realize the Dept. of Education cut would send a bad signal to Americans...sure, we needs to spend less...how about getting out of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan...ect. Start there we also do not need the government to do research and development. Let the private sector provide that for the military. Boeing has some good ideas...let them develop a few planes that will rival everyone else. Hey, will stimulate the economy!

Have the government on the other hand, supply tax breaks to small businesses who hire and other companies as well. Give support to infrastructure companies who repave America.

I do think we should raise taxes but very negligible...like 5%.
 
Recall your forces from overseas.

Cuts to education are going to further damage your technological advancements.

Impose heavy import tariffs.

Start farming communes for the unemployed ... maybe some Kibbutz style accomodation in rural zones ... see North Korea for interest.

Sell off Hawai to pay down the debt ...

Halve all politicians wages.

Get rid of the local councils and have the states run these.

Kick out anyone who can't sing the National anthem.

Deport all political prisoners ... so you don't have to feed them.

Design a better pizza ... ??
 

gropouce

Distinguished
May 1, 2011
633
1
19,010


And Porto-Rico.



And if you burn Mexico (and mexicans), you could economize billion of dollars on border surveillance
 
Gee the French are known to be rutheless and ambitious and good in the sack but I have a soft spot for the Mexicans ... because of Lily Saint ... well its a hard spot but you get my meaning.

The mexicans coming into the US are probably some of the hardest working blue collar workers they have ... and all under 200 lbs too ... some 2 for 1.

What is this porto-rico you speak of?? Was it a lost French colony?

 
You might want to leave the topic of education though ... or do some further investigation on its role ... we have a Federal Education dept here ... their role is important ... no they don't teach ... but they control spending to the states and drive the priorities for trg and ed ... pushing delivery into areas of need ... driving policy and research etc too.

A headless chook doesn't get far ... hmmm ...
 

Gulli

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
1,495
0
19,310
1) Reduce military spending to 2.5% - 3% of GDP (closing unnecessary bases, not giving contractors blank cheques anymore, etc...), saving the government over $200 billion a year and still leaving enough to own any other country on Earth for many years to come.

2) Getting a government regulated healthcare system. The government doesn't have to run the whole thing (it could be shared with corporations and the states), but has to regulate it (set price caps, making sure people aren't denied coverage, making sure insurers don't run away with all the money) and fund it (yes your taxes will go up by $100, but not having to pay a $400 insurance bill, of which $300 just went into the CEO's pockets, compensates for that). And oh yeah, make it mandatory for all politicians to subscribe to this system and this system alone (outlaw private healthcare for them).

3) Getting rid of the debt system: paying with credit cards and cheques is neither secure nor sustainable. Just pay with the money that's actually in your account right now, not the hypothetical money you think may be in it next month.

4) Fix loopholes that currently enable major corporations to get away with not paying billions in taxes.

5) Outlaw campaign contributions from businesses.

6) Fix the higher education system: people without millionaire parents should be able to go to college without it leaving them, or the government providing a scholarship (which should only be awarded for academic performances), with a $100.000+ debt. Then maybe doctors could be held to a salary cap more easily (see point 2).

7) Get rid of tax cuts for the rich: those tax cuts solving the current unemployment problem, while keeping government revenue the same, is a mathematical impossibility, so no, tax cuts won't get America out of debt, on the contrary.
 

Gulli

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
1,495
0
19,310
@oldmangamer

No, government doesn't run things with 100% efficiency, but every other developed country on Earth is prove that in the end government is still more efficient than a corporation when it comes to things like healthcare and education (mind you, some countries leave the actual work to corporations, but these are legally bound to price caps and salary caps). The difference stems from the fact public healthcare has no shareholders demanding bigger profits every year and no CEO who wants a new private jet every six months. The only way healthcare and education can be profitable is by ripping people off and denying access to the poorer or weaker members of society. Btw. community colleges already heavily subsidized, that is the only reason they are still somewhat affordable (even though tuition has been rising faster than wages for many years, meaning even community colleges will become unaffordable in the future unless someone cleans out the system).

I did not say more taxes would solve unemployment, I said lower taxes (for the rich) would not solve it and I didn't call for tax increase but for the end of tax cuts which were supposed to be temporary and obviously have not solved unemployment during the past 8 years. The official unemployment stands at 13 million. The current tax cuts (those for the rich) cost $70 billion a year, so even if, after 8 years the rich decide to give 8 million of those 13 million people a job (resulting in the lowest unemployment rate since the 1950's) then these newly employed would, on average, have to pay $8.750 (which is the tax you pay over a $35.000 income, an unfeasible amount since most of the newly employed will be low wage workers) in federal taxes per year just to make up for the tax cut. So I wasn't kidding when I said it was a mathematical impossibility. The reason for this is that the richest few percent of the American population owns much more wealth than all other citizens combined. When Donald Trump gets a 1% tax cut he needs to hire dozens of people to make the tax cut worthwile for the government. Now obviously he won't do that (if he really needed that 1% to be able to hire people he wouldn't have a private jet and a $125 million house in Florida, if he didn't need that 1% then he could have hired those people before the tax cut, but apparently he doesn't think he needs them, meaning he won't hire them after the tax cut either).

Edit: you need to read your link: it says corporate tax income increased after the Bush tax cuts, while the growth in income tax of employees was much smaller (in fact less than the tax cuts themselves cost, unemployment did drop, but not by much and the worldwide economic recovery after the slump of 2001-2002 seems a much more obvious reason for this than American tax cuts). Statistics over a longer period show corporate tax income sharply decreasing around the year 2000 and pretty much rebounding after 2003. So it's not really net growth and can be explained by much more plausible reasons than the Bush tax cuts. In fact tax cuts don't really influence unempoyment: they don't make it worse but they don't make it better either, they just make the rich even richer.

Edit: there is now a group of 400 American billionaires who own more wealth than the poorer half of the American population (that's over 150 million people!) If that doesn't bring my point (tax cuts on the richest people are too damn expensive to ever earn back), then I don't know what will.
 

Gulli

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
1,495
0
19,310


Call it what you want, it's the truth. The United States is the last developed nation on Earth not to have realized this, but it will, in the not too distant future when a critical mass is reached, when a high enough percentage of the population can no longer afford basic healthcare and education, even with a full time job, while corporations are reaping record profits and demanding even more tax cuts to finance their sweatshops in Asia. It will be kinda like Greece is today, only with different underlying causes.
 


If he does,( or if any of you continue,) I will make sure Reynod bans you all...or I could get 4Ryan6 over here...he is not much fun to deal with.
 

warfart1

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
11
0
18,510
Basically,

An increase in the grand total of tax income, and everyone living with a few more potholes for a few years. This is putting it crudely of course, but is, in my common sense opinion, what needs to happen.

Cheers,
Warfart1
 

RazberyBandit

Distinguished
Dec 25, 2008
2,303
0
19,960
dogman, Ryan's not a bad guy to talk to at all. None of the mods are, really. At least, they aren't when you're civil...

As for how to actually cut the debt as opposed to reducing the deficit, if any of us had a truly genuine idea how to actually do so, I doubt we'd be on this forum discussing it, would we? ;)

I do feel our country over-extends itself into the rest of the world, and we've done so far too much for far too long. Whether it be politically, morally (or immorally), militarily, or otherwise, we need to wipe our own ass clean before we tell others how to do so. Let someone else take the frakkin reigns during a crisis. And don't gimme that "protect our interests" bullshit, either. We wouldn't have such immense foreign interests if we were actually taking care of business at home.

Also, the fact that the US went from being a tech-exporting country post-WWII to an agriculture-exporting one was a HUGE step backwards. If we're ever going to recover, we need to rebuild this nation's once mighty industry. Increasing taxes on imports would be a start, but we're already so profoundly dependent upon and indebted to countries with spurring industrial growth (like China) that it'll never get through Congress. I tend to think it might actually take another world war to get the mean machine rolling again.

As for healthcare, that whole debate is moot until as a nation (or as a people) we finally awaken from the "pill for an ill" corporate medicine cycle and realize that treating an illness isn't the same as curing it. Healthcare itself is corporate controlled on nearly every level. Why is 1 out of 4 commercials on TV about some damn drug? Because the drug companies can afford it - they make BILLIONS off their MILLIONS invested in advertising.

/soapbox
 


You are allowed. The fact you guys go on tirades and begin wars with others. I appreciate you commenting, but the stuff both cons and lib's spew on this forum is trash. So, stop it.



You have never talked to Ryan have you? He is nice, just like the other mods...but he is more strict and harsher.

...civil, yeah...the whole point of my comment earlier.

 

RazberyBandit

Distinguished
Dec 25, 2008
2,303
0
19,960
Actually, I've spoken with Ryan at length a few times. As for him being any more strict than others, eh... Maybe. But harsh? TGGA wins that showdown IMO. But at times all mods have to be strict, and sometimes a little harsh, too.

Ryan actually banned me, once, but we talked it over and he lifted it. Like I said, when you communicate in a civil manner, any possible prejudgments fade and a civil discussion can ensue.
 



"I will dissect your post after dinner unless badge wants to have a go."

Don't say it is not.
 

Gulli

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
1,495
0
19,310


As long as growth continues they can still afford a lot. They'll get into real problems when this generation of only children gets old and the country will subsequently age (but that's a problem every rich country has to deal with). Also, growing inequality and endemic corruption threaten "national harmony". China does have an advantage in that it doesn't have elections every two years: when the Chinese government (consisting of highly educated pragmatists, who don't waste time on denying evolution or climate change) wants stuff done it gets done. Of course the cost of this efficiency is less personal freedoms for the citizens, a fact they accept as long as things keep going well.
 
I will not do a complete dissection, but I will get started.


Good place to start would be NATO. Really expensive, big ticket items get all of the publicity, But the biggest item is manpower costs. Conflict mode has shifted from "heavy iron" (think armor) set piece battles to counter insurgency operations which are manpower intensive.


Like Obamacare, the 2,700 page bill that we had to pass to see what was in it? How is the explosion in government bureaucracy supposed to help contain costs?
http://www.house.gov/brady/pdf/Obamacare_Chart.pdf
Notice that the IRS is in there. What do they have to do with health care?
And why do Canadians with their "free" healthcare, come to the U.S.?


I just checked my wallet. I have two credit card and a debit/ATM card (not counting my corporate credit card). Total monthly balance carried over? $0. I have no problems managing my credit cards. And how are people supposed to pay for big ticket items like homes and cars? Yes, I know that that is part of what caused the recent financial implosion. And that had its roots in Carter's Community Reinvestment Act.


Not a bad idea as far as it goes. How about going to a sane corporate tax policy? US corporate rates are some of the highest in the world. A recent, simple example: checkout Gov. Moonbeam Brown (CA) verses amazon. He had the wonderful idea of taxing internet commerce of the companies that had a presence in California. He figured it would bring in $200 million. amazon decided they were not in business to be tax collectors for the state and pulled the plug on their California affiliate program. That will cost CA about $120 million in income taxes.


Sure, as long as we can outlaw campaign contributions from the unions.


Better idea: do away with the Dept. of Education. After all, it has worked so well in the last 30 years. (Look up the definition of insanity.) Salary caps? Please. :lol: If we are going to do that, let's cap the salary of sports figures, lawyers, and our congresscritters.


What is the dividing line between "rich" and the rest of us? If you set it at $1 million, you could do a 100% tax rate and it would only be a drop in the bucket. Do the research and run the numbers.

I leave it to badge to pick up the mantle.
 

Gulli

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
1,495
0
19,310
@Jsc

"If you set it at $1 million, you could do a 100% tax rate and it would only be a drop in the bucket. Do the research and run the numbers."

Maybe you should do the numbers yourself if you're thinking a 100% tax on millionaires would only be a drop in the bucket... I'll give you a hint: these millionaires and billionaires own more wealth than the rest of the population combined! A 100% tax on these people would probably triple government revenue.

"And why do Canadians with their "free" healthcare, come to the U.S.?"

Only the very rich do that, because they don't want to wait a week for a hip transplant, so instead they pay a couple of million bucks to have it done within two days in the US. Now of course a not-so-rich American would be glad with a one week waiting period, because in the US he would not get that hip transplant, ever, well unless he files for bankrupcy. Really, take it from someone who's experienced both government run healthcare and a government/corporate hybrid system: both are vastly superior when it comes to caring for the common man (everyone who can't afford a monthly $1200 premium), and a lot cheaper as well (even in terms of GDP). It's very tragic to hear people say America has the best healthcare in the world. No, it has among the best healthcare in the world, at least, for those who can afford it. It usually takes a relative filing for bankrupcy because of chemo or getting denied treatment after 20 years of paying exorbitant premiums for people to start believing that maybe there is some merit in what every other rich country is doing with healthcare. I hope for your sake your insurer doesn't screw you over one day and you won't have to learn this painful lesson when it's too late, but chances are that will happen. Playing fair is not profitable in healthcare or education. The corporations can choose to have 4 people each pay $250 for service (the right thing to do) or have 1 person pay $1000 for service (the profitable thing to do because this option requires less personnel). It's different from say the car industry because there are less vendors, there are no alternatives, there's no such thing as second hand healthcare or education, there's no difference in "models" and features and in the case of healthcare you really don't have a chocie: if you say no you die. Some people say the government should not force people to have healthcare, but it's not the government that forces you: it's nature giving you the "choice" to have healthcare or die.

"Salary caps? Please. If we are going to do that, let's cap the salary of sports figures, lawyers, and our congresscritters."

Sports figures and lawyers aren't paid for from tax dollars and congresscritters already have salary caps.

"US corporate rates are some of the highest in the world."

They are comparable to those of other rich countries and (this is a fact not many Americans know) in many European countries (and many others as well) corporations pay "social fees" for employees. These fees amount to hefty taxation but are not registered as "corporate tax". Corporations are far better off in the US then they are in other rich countries when it comes to tax, of course there are also many poor countries out there with which no rich country can or should compete because these countries are willing to practically turn their country into a giant sweatshop just to attract foreign investment.

"Better idea: do away with the Dept. of Education."

Sure, if you want people in Kansas to learn Adam and Eve walked with dinosaurs... But seriously, don't you think something may be wrong when even the tuition at community colleges is rising faster than wages are? You always hear people telling how they paid for college themselves, only that was 20 years ago (when tuition was much lower compared to minimum wage) and they followed a cheap and light curriculum (law, business), not an exact science or medicine. Other countries prevent universities from raising tuition without consent of the national parliament.

There are many things that are great about America but sometimes America has to be a bit less stubborn and accept the fact that sometimes it can learn a thing or two from other countries. You know, just like not waiting to abolish slavery, segregation and decriminalize homosexuality for decades after every other developed country did these things. A fitting comparison since healthcare is very serious business: every year many thousands of Americans die or have to move to a cardboard box under the bridge for the crime of falling ill and not making enough money to afford the exorbitant and ever faster rising insurance premiums, then again, even having such an insurance doesn't shield you completely: you can still get screwed and be denied treatment. The managers at insurance companies don't care: they get a bonus for every person they deny treatment.
 

Gulli

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
1,495
0
19,310
"If all wealth was confiscated at 100% rate it would only fund the government's current budget for 1 year. But then, thats it. There is no more wealth and no more wealth creation after that.

And, do you think people are going to even remotely accept a 100% tax rate? Why work ?"

Did I say I would favor a 100% tax rate for anyone? No, so stop saying I did.

"Government run healthcare: If it works so well, why are folks in the U.K. pulling their own teeth with pliers because they can't get in to see a dentist?"

Are you talking about the UK or the Appalachians?

"There are only 8.4 million American households that claim assets of $1 million or greater out of a population of 330 million."

Yes, and those 8.4 million (people, not households) own more wealth than the other 322 million combined. Why is that so hard to believe?

"It is not yours or anyone elses business how much money Donald Trump has or earns. It is none of your business how many vacation homes he has around the world. It is no ones business how many private jets he has. He is a private citizen. As long as he is conducting his affaris legally, and pays his taxes on time, it is no ones business."

IF he would just pay his taxes, instead of claiming tax cuts.
 


Hey ... your public education system is bad enough.

Do you really want it to get worse?



 

Gulli

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
1,495
0
19,310


Ah yes, the dailymail, the UK's most trusted source of information (ever heard of a "tabloid"?). That story was debunked by the local NHS saying the man never approached one of their many offices in the region that could have helped him. On the other hand the third line of the story says: "Ian Boynton could not afford to go private for treatment", so even if the story were true, which it isn't, he wouldn't have gotten the service in the US either. The NHS would not be a good system for America however because it is so alien to most Americans, the Dutch or German systems would be better suited, both have corporations take care of the actual healthcare, but with stringent regulations. In Germany (and the UK and Canada as well) it is also possible to purchase private insurance, just like in the US, for those who can afford it, in the Netherlands one can purchase additional care on top of the universal plan. I have lived in the Netherlands for many years and have never heard of anyone being denied treatment, ever (and I know a lot of people with ilnesses and disabilities). Every hospital has MRI-scanners (which were invented in the UK!) and medical degrees obtained here are accredited in the US, so quality isn't lacking either. All that for only 2/3 of the cost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.