The first place we have to start with all of it is freezing it; ie, no more "cost of living" increases. Then, hopefully, we can start cutting some things. But pretty much, it's going to take a semi-disaster to get anything done. That's the problem with democracy. The "disaster" will be something like SS/Medicare being only able to pay 75% of benefits in the mid 2020s, which is what is being projected by different reports.
Haha, my force powers sense an attempt at humor. Republicans are somewhat effective at cutting taxes, which is a good thing. They're not that good at cutting spending. Democrats are not any good at cutting spending nor cutting taxes.
Republicans cut taxes for their contributors, they do not cut taxes for their voting base. Adding tariffs is effectively taxation. Cutting deductions and credits is effectively taxation. But at least I can write off my private jet now.
Well, we're only a year or so into the Trump boom, so perhaps it's too early to tell on increased economic activity bringing in higher tax revenues. As I said elsewhere, if you bring in increased revenue via higher taxes/higher tax rates, all that happens is that govt finds new ways to spend the money. They will only pay down debt that they are obligated to. Like a credit card user only making monthly minimum payments. Taxes should not be raised, for a host of reasons. Spending should be cut, and across the board. Followed by deep cuts. As for the high deficits now, I increasingly can't help but wonder if Trump/conservatives/Repubs have a method to the madness. Which is to say, the deficits become so high that pressure increases to make cuts. But without that pressure that comes from higher deficits, the political system would not be forced to confront spending cuts. I think all this will require a commission, like the base closing commission of the early 90s. That way, the politicians can say "it wasn't me, it was the commission." The normal political system can't handle this problem, unfortunately.
Will cutting regulation on carbon industries raise enough tax income to pay for the effects of climate change?
No way want to fix Debt in DC. For example, to fix medicare and medicaid, you need to fix healthcare, but to do that you have to take away from someone: big pharma, hospitals and doctors, insurance companies etc. No one have the guts to do that at this point. That is why we have the half baked Obama care or the big air burger Trump/GOP fix. You can say the same thing about defense spending, no one truly want to fix it.
We've been in a economic boom for about 4 years now. Look at a graph of GDP growth and the unemployment rate. That rate of change is rather linear. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14000024 https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Dunno. But first we would need to agree that climate change is a real thing, and something we should be worried about even if it is.
"WE" would just be you. You know those guys that can land a satellite on an asteroid, or modify a genetic code, or spend their whole lives plotting atmospheric CO2 and the total energy budget of the planet, they don't have any doubt.
I don't see any jobs lost in our military branches. The jobs would be lost in the military industrial complex building the equipment our military doesn't want. The industrialized world is headed toward labor crisis as population growth is not keeping up with labor demands of industry. I'm not worried about jobs lost in the military industrial complex sector.
Social Security is funded entirely by employees and employers. Not a red cent from federal coffers is spent on Social Security. You can belay talk of cutting Social Security right freaking now. If I recall correctly, 85% of Medicare is funded by employers and employees. Instead of painful cuts to this healthcare, let's reform healthcare to cut its costs and save the federal government's 15% there.
It and anything significant is unlikely to ever happen with the current political climate especially with the filibuster still in place. Bernie Sanders even said recently he's not crazy about getting rid of the filibuster. Cory Booker said do nothing to weaken it. Gillibrand and Harris are also "conflicted" on any changes to it after living through being the minority party. That means to get the kind of legislation done to make an impact on the deficit it will have to be a bipartisan bill that includes spending cuts and raising taxes. In my opinion, the only candidate out there now that has ANY chance to possibly make that happen is Joe Biden. He is respected in the Senate by moderate republicans and they might be able to cut a deal. Otherwise, just business as usual will continue.
The federal government has become a bloated monster. We spend $230 billion a month and that still isn’t enough to cover everything. How much of this is efficiently and effectively used? I’m not privy to the budget but I’d take my red pen out and slash liberally. Pensions and other excessive retirement benefits? Gone. Defense? Cut it in half. Education? Slashed. Spend what we have more effectively. War on drugs? Over. Its a failure and waste of money. Problem is once you fund something you can never get rid of it. The federal government has become this massive, bloated, inefficient, ineffective and hugely expensive monster. It wasn’t always like this and it really wasn’t meant to be.
What steps would you take to cut the deficit I would and am partaking in an effort to call for an Article V Convention of States where a Balanced Budget amendment would be discussed until perfected and then sent back out to state legislatures to vote on. 15 states already on board. https://conventionofstates.com/
