It's difficult. Voters have been getting a free lunch for a long time, and aren't willing to listen to/vote for anyone telling them "YOUR benefits need to be cut!"
I have a feeling we're going to the wall this time 'round....
Cutting the deficit
- Thread starter Covertibility
- Start date
It's difficult. Voters have been getting a free lunch for a long time, and aren't willing to listen to/vote for anyone telling them "YOUR benefits need to be cut!"
I have a feeling we're going to the wall this time 'round....
I'm only familiar with the U.S. economy. There the problem is caused, at its roots, by an obsolescent constitution (It's two hundred years old!) and the defects inherent in capitalism. Nothing of real substance will be done until there is a crisis of such magnitude that it threatens the very existence of the Republic, and that is a long, long way off.
In the meantime all of the United States' fiscal problems could be solved by bringing its medical and defense costs into line with other developed countries. But, of course, that will not happen until there is an absolute crisis of great magnitude that cannot be resolved by cheapening the currency. That day is coming, but it is in the distant future, and i'll be quite dead.
In the meantime all of the United States' fiscal problems could be solved by bringing its medical and defense costs into line with other developed countries. But, of course, that will not happen until there is an absolute crisis of great magnitude that cannot be resolved by cheapening the currency. That day is coming, but it is in the distant future, and i'll be quite dead.
The odd thing is that benefits don't need to be cut at all. In reality, benefits in the U.S. are small compared to all other developed countries. The only thing that needs to be done is to bring medical and defense cost down to fall in line with other developed countries. The U.S. spends 4K* per man, women and child on defense per year, Germany spends $300. The U.S. "disease"care system is the most inefficient in the world and costs double what its next closest competitor spends for better outcomes.
If you take any service that is essential to life and turn it into a cartel, you've got a problem.
______________
*That figure includes future veterans' benefits and interest. Even the direct cost of ~2K/year is almost greater than all other nations on Earth combined spend!!!
I would agree with you, P, except the really big expenses aren't even on the books and can't be accounted for by such an analysis. We are going to continue lurching from one multi-trillion bailout to another until Americans realize that 30 year mortgages are fundamentally unsustainable - and when that happens, we're looking at a real implosion in property values, with knock on effects that will be epic on a global scale.
Pile on the end of cheap energy, the perpetual existence of which is a buried assumption in nearly all our policy decisions, and there is a very very serious problem looming. I agree with bone, we are all going to taking big bites of the incoming shit sandwich.
Cutting defense by at least half to two-thirds would be a huge help, and its going to happen whether we like it or not, but IMO it is nowhere near enough to deal with the scale of the problem.
Pile on the end of cheap energy, the perpetual existence of which is a buried assumption in nearly all our policy decisions, and there is a very very serious problem looming. I agree with bone, we are all going to taking big bites of the incoming shit sandwich.
Cutting defense by at least half to two-thirds would be a huge help, and its going to happen whether we like it or not, but IMO it is nowhere near enough to deal with the scale of the problem.
There are some independent thinktank studies floating around in the ether which draw forward curves for the US deficit with incredibly draconian assumptions such as cutting defense by 50 % and taxing the top tier at 75% .
Without touching entitlements, it really isn't as significant as logic dictate in terms of paying down the deficit sooner.
Without touching entitlements, it really isn't as significant as logic dictate in terms of paying down the deficit sooner.
Low-tax for whom? High-benefit for whom?? Because it's definitely not for the working, middle class.
Example...federal, state and local included...my sister pays 30,000 out of 80,000 a year, and that's with a dependent. That means she works almost 5 months out of 12 for free. You call that a low tax?
Exactly. It is very easy to have what you deem to be noble and utopian ideas when you are spending someone else's money. Try paying out 50% of what you make to the state and the Feds. And then every time you spend what was left that you did manage to keep, the taxes generated from that go to the the state and the fed.
Oh, it would appear that your ilk is entitled to unilaterally change all of that by judicial activism and executive fiat. Social justice. One political party gets to pick winners and losers, and one political party gets to redistribute an entire society's wealth. Use and create entitlements to bribe and buy your core voting constituency. It is working quite well for you in California and Illinois.