What is your solution to the debt crises

[OldCoyote]

I would like to know what you think we have to do to solve the debt crises.
I know what has to be done and it will not be popular.

[Deleted]

There is nothing we can do that will be "not popular" to somebody.
If none of our great minds in Washington can figure it out then across the board cuts to absolutely everything the gov spends money on. Everything.
Then after a whole big giant heap of hurt they may actually have the vision to see where our priorities lie.

[Bluerobin]

First thing we have to do is get people working again and paying taxes. Funny how revenue will address many problems.

[upstatemom]

Cut Congressional travel, perks, pensions, and pet projects. Tell me why we have to pay for their travel when they are on break. They abuse the "fact finding" a little too often for it to be legitimate.

[rockon]

The solutions are quite simple really but they have to start by everyone taking step one which is recognizing that we have a serious problem.
1- Government can not "create" jobs but they could be very helpful if they reviewed and revised our free trade agreements and policy to insure that the countries we trade with share our ideals, regulations and taxation and then make adjustments accordingly. This alone would do more to help on the revenue side then any other thing they could do... and it would cost zero!!! But...... remember we have had revenue increases forever and still piled up more and more debt for over 5 decades. Revenue without major spending reductions will not fix our problem.

[mwcpa]

Some random ideas.... all are probably not possible.... and many other ideas could exist.... these are just random thoughts...

1. Just as their constitutes have to, cut Congresses salary a bit, cut many of the perks and staff... "business" has been cutting staff and having one person do the job of two, three, four... yet government gets bigger. (we are is a "crisis" of sorts, yet Congress is on vacation)...
2. Create some sort of fair "tax break" for new jobs created by all employers that are kept on shore
3. Across the board belt tightening at all levels of government.... ever drive past a road repair area.... one guy shoveling, one guy in the backhoe and three guys watching....ever been at an airport... twenty five people standing around doing nothing but chit chatting amongst themselves and one line for one hundred and fifty passengers with one guy checking ids...
4. As was suggested by our President (and I believe the last) review programs, get rid of bad ones, get rid of overlapping, etc. (I believe it was once referred to as taking a scalpel to the programs by Mr. Bush, but I may be wrong).... this always seems to be a campaign promise and rhetoric at state of the union and other speeches, but it never happens
5. Consider "work fare".... I do not know about you, but the welfare lifers (ones who are able, just not willing to work) have them pick up a broom and sweep the streets (I do not mean this literally, but there is plenty that can be done... things that are not being properly addressed with our tax dollars)
6. Consider both sides proposals... Rs and Ds should be locked in a room, without news cameras, without lobbyists, without cell phones, internet, etc., etc and come up with a plan that benefits most of the people, not the core of their political party and pundits. A balanced approach is needed, not just cuts to "needed" programs and not just revenue enhancers (taxes).....
7. Have Congress focus on issues in the United States.... I do not see other countries running to help us out in our time of "need".... actually some probably enjoy seeing us knocked down a peg or two.... why help those who would not even consider helping us....

Many of these are small measures.... but when one is trying to get one's house in order financially, you are not always going to find the one big item to fix your woes... sometimes it takes a nickel here and a nickel there... and before you know it you have twenty nickels... and that's a dollar....

Let's hope Congress enjoys their vacation... and hopefully we can put most of them on the unemployment lines that they are doing nothing to shorten with their immature and childish fighting for political purposes only.... nothing they do helps the country, only strengthens their base and widens the divide....

[privateinvestor]

What is your solution to the debt crises


Do NOT re elect Barrack Obama to a second term as our president. This debt crisis happened on his watch and he has been unable to lead during this crisis as many warned in 2008...

[rockon]

Maybe we have to start with real basic principles like understanding that government can only spend money after they remove it from our economy or that they can not create sustainable employment. Government would be equal to overhead in a corporation. Some is required to organize and facilitate the operation but too much will cause a company to not be competitive with their competition.

[fairlycrazy23]

eliminate baseline budgeting, it is only a cut if you actually spend less than you did the previous year.

This would at least let people know what was actually going on,
so if it was reported that the Blahs wanted to cut $10million from the orphans fund, that meant they wanted to give them $10 million less next year than they got this year, not that instead of giving them $20million more next year they are only going to give them $10million more.

[sesfw]

Figure out and write down the Federal Government's monthly INCOME

Have no cap on the SS tax and have everyone contribute to it, including members of Congress
Members of Congress to have no other form of golden parachute than their constituents; IE, health, retirement, perks, etc

Subtract the amount paid to SS recipients ...... only the people that have actually paid in and to minor children of deceased tax payers.
Subtract the amount paid for national defense.

Prioritize all other 'gimme' programs and pay on them until the funds run out.

Do the same thing for the next month, and next, etc

STOP SPENDING when you run out of funds. Just like the rest of us.

bho's resignation will do a lot of good

[privateinvestor]

PASS A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT ASAP OR ELSE CONGRESS WILL SPEND US INTO ANOTHER RECESSION

[Deleted]

increase revenues and cut expenses.

To increase revenues we need to figure out how to get companies to spend their cash. They have tons of it. We need to incentive them to spend it.

To cut expenses we need to look at social security and medicare. Small changes now will make big changes down the road.



I am not in favor of a balanced budget amendment.

[Bluerobin]

Archie, leave my entitlements alone!!! You can pay me from the SS and medicare pockets, or take them away and pay me from the welfare pocket. Kinda dumb! All other wasteful expenses should be cut to the bone first. Congress should also lose their overly generous pensions and get only SS (then you will never see cuts).

A balanced budget isn't needed. Just common sense.

[privateinvestor]

The States have to balance their budgets so why does congress get a pass??? The Dems big spenders have made us a debtor nation and now the threat of a double dip recession is loaming in the background again..

Obama spoke yesterday and the market went down another 200 pts after this speech which was too little too late for Wall St

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2011 9:06:03 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

The States have to balance their budgets so why does congress get a pass??? The Dems big spenders have made us a debtor nation and now the threat of a double dip recession is loaming in the background again..

Obama spoke yesterday and the market went down another 200 pts after this speech which was too little too late for Wall St

State balanced budgets are a joke. They don't work.


That said, they can't print money like the feds can.

[Bluerobin]

PI, I must have missed something. I thought it was the pubs who gave us two 10 year wars and no way to fund them. Then had the lunacy to cut taxes during the wars.

[mwcpa]

A balanced budget amendedment at the federal level will not work in my opinion...

What happens when we have a natural disaster that was not "budgeted" for.... do we tell our fellow citizens fend for yourself....

[privateinvestor]

Aug 9, 2011 9:14:20 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

PI, I must have missed something. I thought it was the pubs who gave us two 10 year wars and no way to fund them. Then had the lunacy to cut taxes during the wars.

? Congress and the administrationx funded the two wars for the past decade ....It was one lone conservative congressman Ron Paul and a few Democrats from California who voted against funding these two wars...if you want to check into this funding issue

[thyme4change]

I thought it was the pubs who gave us two 10 year wars and no way to fund them.

All I know is that Obama made a bunch of promises, and then got into office and he and all his advisors found out what was really going on and made, essentially, no change to foreign policy. So, either his inexperience gave him no better ideas, or he felt W. was doing the right thing. About the only thing I'm sure of, is that we (the people) don't know all the risks of not being there. Obama had the power to make changes there, but hasn't. Is it for a good reason, like we need to be there? Or a bad reason, like he doesn't know what the hell he is doing?

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2011 7:41:02 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

What is your solution to the debt crises


Do NOT re elect Barrack Obama to a second term as our president. This debt crisis happened on his watch and he has been unable to lead during this crisis as many warned in 2008...

If he was a CEO of any company he would be long gone already

[thyme4change]

I'm actually really sad that Obama ran and won when he did. I'm thinking if he had waited 10 years, he would have more experience and have been a better president. I probably wouldn't have agreed with his policies then either - but I think he was just promoted too fast and beyond is present ability. I think congress is running amok and he doesn't have control of his own party, nor does he know how to deal with the adversity that is bringing down this country. The republicans see that and are exploiting that to prove that they are doing their job. It is unfortunate, because I think Obama is a smart guy and could be the bridge builder he wants to be - he just wasn't ready.

[Driftr]

What is your solution to the debt crises

Constitutional amendment that Treasury shall not issue payments exceeding 97% of the prior year's payments until there is no Federal debt outstanding. From that point forward payments in a given year shall not exceed the prior years tax receipts.

[fairlycrazy23]

Aug 9, 2011 11:43:53 GMT -5 Driftr said:

What is your solution to the debt crises

Constitutional amendment that Treasury shall not issue payments exceeding 97% of the prior year's payments until there is no Federal debt outstanding. From that point forward payments in a given year shall not exceed the prior years tax receipts.

This just seems like some variation on a balanced budget amendment.

[thyme4change]

I would make Driftr's more complicated. Like - if we are in a recession (legal recession) they can have 103% of last year's, if we are in a growth period, they can have 97%, if we are in a high growth period (and define some meaning to this) they can have 95%, etc. That way we are paying down more in good times, and have a little extra money to build a bunch of roads when the economy is down. I mean - look how great our road building project has turned out this time - clearly the answer to all our problems.

[Driftr]

Aug 9, 2011 12:05:20 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Aug 9, 2011 11:43:53 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Constitutional amendment that Treasury shall not issue payments exceeding 97% of the prior year's payments until there is no Federal debt outstanding. From that point forward payments in a given year shall not exceed the prior years tax receipts.

This just seems like some variation on a balanced budget amendment.

It may appear that way, but for the first x years until the debt is gone, it is actually a cap on spending. By focusing solely on the spending side of the equation, we remove the temptation to fiddle with taxes to fix our debt problem.

[thyme4change]

Actually, Driftr, nothing about your amendment makes it illegal to fiddle with taxes. It would just mean that tax changes this year wouldn't reap benefits until next year. Basically, if you get elected, you want to get as much tax revenue in the door this year (or next year) as possible - that way the year after you can spend more.

[fairlycrazy23]

Aug 9, 2011 12:16:48 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Aug 9, 2011 12:05:20 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

This just seems like some variation on a balanced budget amendment.

It may appear that way, but for the first x years until the debt is gone, it is actually a cap on spending. By focusing solely on the spending side of the equation, we remove the temptation to fiddle with taxes to fix our debt problem.

True, i just meant it was a balanced budget amendment with a way to get there. It is a real 3% cut each year.

However, I don't think it would work, I think it would take way too long to pay off the 15 trillion in debt, and since you couldn't borrow any more money, the first year would really be like 40-50% cut and that is NOT going to happen.

I think it would be better to reduce spending by 3% a year until we got to a balanced budget, that is a real 3% reduction not baseline.

[Driftr]

Aug 9, 2011 12:20:26 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Actually, Driftr, nothing about your amendment makes it illegal to fiddle with taxes. It would just mean that tax changes this year wouldn't reap benefits until next year. Basically, if you get elected, you want to get as much tax revenue in the door this year (or next year) as possible - that way the year after you can spend more.

No. My ammendment would not take taxes into account at all until the Federal debt was at 0. That would be many years from now. Between now and then people could do whatever they wanted with taxes. It would not have any effect on what we spent the following year. That amount would be set at 97% of the prior years expenditures. Go have some fun in excel and see how nicely it starts trimming our costs after you let the compounding work for a few years.

I agree that once the debt is gone, Congress will start playing games again with taxes. I think that with the clean slate we'd start at and with the surpluses we'd be running in the years leading up to debt elimination, we'd be able to weed those Congress-critters who'd do the most damage out.

[Driftr]

Aug 9, 2011 12:26:59 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Aug 9, 2011 12:16:48 GMT -5 Driftr said:

It may appear that way, but for the first x years until the debt is gone, it is actually a cap on spending. By focusing solely on the spending side of the equation, we remove the temptation to fiddle with taxes to fix our debt problem.

True, i just meant it was a balanced budget amendment with a way to get there. It is a real 3% cut each year.

However, I don't think it would work, I think it would take way too long to pay off the 15 trillion in debt, and since you couldn't borrow any more money, the first year would really be like 40-50% cut and that is NOT going to happen.

I think it would be better to reduce spending by 3% a year until we got to a balanced budget, that is a real 3% reduction not baseline.

Sorry. I meant to include that we eliminate the debt ceiling as part of the ammendment. I expect we will need to continue borrowing for several years. Go play with excel and our current expenditures versus our current tax receipts. See how quickly our current 1.5 trillion deficit becomes a surplus if receipts don't increase but expenditures decrease 3% every year. The compounding is remarkable when it works for you rather than against you.

[thyme4change]

Got it - I was reading to fast. I thought you said 'last year's receipts' - which I would be okay with in theory, but like fairlycrazy said - that first year would be a doozy!