[quote name='UncleBob']Huge cuts in military/defense spending. Massive cuts/eliminations in farm and energy subsidies. A simplification of the tax code that includes the elimination of credits and deductions. Elimination of several Federal programs and turning over control of those to the states (DoE, for example).[/quote]
wank wank. "huge." "massive." if this is what you think passes for realistic, adult conversation about deficits and how to tackle it, you're mistaken.
Yeah, And I'm still waiting for you to tell me how it's different to flaunt tax increases that amount to about $160 Billion/Year vs. telling folks who want to give the government more money that they can. Both amounts are so miniscule when compared to the scale of the yearly deficit and the overall debt that neither should seriously be considered a solution to the debt problem.
The CBO projected deficit for FY2013 is $650B, a full $500B less than FY2012. That $160B, the "piddly amount," will reduce the size of the deficit, if it meets expectations, by around 25% in the first year alone. If the deficit continues to decline year over year like that, the revenue gains from the tax increases will lead to a balanced budget. As more people get jobs, revenues will increase and expenditures (like EBT) will decrease. Let's not act a fool and pretend the deficit will always be the same in size.
The amount raised by tax increases should be enough to cover the projected yearly deficit. A huge amount? Right now, yes. But if Washington can't stomach the results of raising taxes that much, then they need to start cutting spending now. It's that simple.
It's that simple if you think simply. The fiscal cliff - the "austerity bomb," in more accurate terms - is tax hikes and spending cuts. It's precisely what you are asking for as a remedy to the deficit. Why do you think that economists and politicians are so afraid of the "fiscal cliff"? Seeing as how you're pointing to what it will do and saying that's exactly what you want to see in terms of deficit-ending policy, help me understand what you're seeing and projecting that, evidently, is causing fear and worry about our economic stability in nearly everyone else.
So, Myke - do tell. Do you believe that we can continue deficit spending infinitely? Or what is the exact amount at which you believe the debt will grow too large and how did you reach that number? What are the exact tax increases and spending cuts that you would purpose to curtain reaching that number and what are the exact dates in which you'd like to see these go into effect? If you don't believe that deficit spending is an issue, how much do you feel our government should spend in excess of revenues each year and how did you reach that exact number? Additionally, if deficit spending isn't an issue, do tell why we need to bother collecting taxes at all - why not continue deficit spending unchained?
1) I don't think about the debt in terms of a raw number. The actual number is not an important measure.
2) Our debt is still being bought up. When its value tanks, when there's no confidence in the dollar in global markets, when trading and purchase of US debt falls apart - that's what matters. The size of the debt? Only a fool masquerading as a Person Who Is Very Serious About The Deficit™ thinks in such simplistic terms.
3) The US did pay its debts off once.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011...he-entire-national-debt-and-why-it-didnt-last
(side note: pay particular attention to what happened when Jackson briefly shifted to a precious metals standard for gov't land transactions, right wing nutters)
Paying down the debt is valuable, paying down the debt is important. Financial/economic stability of growth in the US is important as well. Making the latter a priority will assist in achieving the former. Paying down the debt with no regard to the impacts of austerity measures on the economy is utterly foolhardy, and anyone paying attention to Europe right now sees mounds of empirical evidence to support that.
One final question - one "serious spending cut" proposal from the right wing is to raise the medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. Do you support this idea to cut the deficit in this way? Can you think of any ill effects (financially) of this suggestion?
