The national debt.

@kolsti87 (521)
United States
July 16, 2010 11:50pm CST
With the budget in the negatives and the debt to other countries (mostly China) will the U.S. ever be able to pay off that debt? We have tons of spending and the taxes can be raised for the rich but still what will this country do? I'm not a crazy uninformed conservative. Fiscally I'm a little conservative but if I had to give myself a label, I'd say liberal. I think that things like health care, unemployment, social security, medicare, medicaid, and other programs of that nature pretty much have to stay but how will the government raise all that money? It's hard to raise taxes unless it's for people who make a lot of all the money. The bush tax cuts really ruined things and hopefully if we raised taxes on the ultra rich (who have definitely had fun during the 8 years of Bush). But I still worry that this country can regain a surplus or for Christ's sake at least a balanced budget. If we just used similar strategies as the Clinton administration, but adjusted for modern times, we might make progress. Also, if unemployment went down more people could get to work and pay more taxes for the country. But no one's hiring because they don't have much incentive to and there is no faith in the economy. :[ Well that's how I see it at least. So fellow knowledgeable myLotters, voice your opinion and explain what you think will happen to the country (United States) whether you live here or not. Even if you don't live here, outside opinions are already good.
4 responses
• United States
20 Jul 10
Well to fix this problem two things are going to have to happen...the government is going to have to severely cut it spending across the board (which they don't want to do) and they are going to have to raise taxes on just about everyone (which the average american does not want them to do). There are not enough rich folks to cover it all. This is going to effect us all in one way or another. It is the only way the pay off all the national debt and the budget deficit and then keep it off.
1 person likes this
• United States
20 Jul 10
I agree state stopping the wars ASAP would help a lot too. I also agree with cutting our military spending. We don't need all those foreign military bases. You have to realize one thing though....our government can not force american companies to make products here in this country. THey can encourage them to with tax breaks and incentives. But can't force them.
@kolsti87 (521)
• United States
20 Jul 10
Yes we can't force them but we can enforce and improve our tax and import laws so that they will want to do that.
@kolsti87 (521)
• United States
20 Jul 10
I agree with an across the board spending cut and I think we can raise taxes but not until the economy picks up. We should just regulate the hell out of the corrupt industries and after the first implementation the ones who don't comply will also pay money. This will keep the out of control, irresponsible, corrupt industries in check. Also, pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP will save tons of money. We can then cut military spending. We spend more on the military than the next top 50 military powers combined. Maybe if we cut that in half we can see who wants to attack us. Also, the American companies need to make their products in America and stop being so freaking greedy. Do you know how many jobs American companies like Nike, Microsoft, etc have to offer? That would create tax revenue, stimulate the economy, fix unemployment, and just make things a lot better.
@dboman (457)
• United States
17 Jul 10
This is my favorite political topic, because it's the most important one. No offense, but before you label people who are worried about the debt "crazy uninformed conservative(s)" you might want to actually inform yourself on the reason that the national debt is so high. For 2008, the federal government spent more than $1 trillion dollars on Social Security and Medicare alone. Mandatory spending for the year was 1.848 Trillion dollars, making up 62% of the federal budget. This is EVERY year. What is mandatory spending? The things you've said "pretty much have to stay". Federal discretionary spending is only 38% of the federal budget. Here's a site with pie charts and all to show you a brief overview of the nation's finances: http://www.facingup.org/why-it-matters/facts-figures As far as "the bush tax cuts ruined things"-this is completely unbased. The problem with the debt is that it's going to take massive spending cuts in both mandatory and discretionary federal spending. Unfortunately, the Democrats have refused to do anything about the debt and spending. On the contrary, they do the opposite, which is continue to try to spend us out of trouble. It's clear that the anti-business policies and attitude of President Obama and the Democratic majority Congress is the reason that there is no faith in the economy. If the policies changed, economic growth will follow. If Democrats keep control of Congress, I don't believe we will get out of this debt. We are far beyond the breaking point with the national debt, and measures need to be taken NOW. Even if Republicans gain control, they will probably not have the strength (or desire) to push through the changes required. In order to get control of this debt situation, raising taxes and drastically cutting spending will both be required. Here's a report by the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform about the national debt, it's causes, and the solutions: http://budgetreform.org/document/red-ink-rising I urge everyone to at least read the Summary.
@dboman (457)
• United States
17 Jul 10
You didn't look at those links, did you? It's not about lack of revenue from tax cuts, or the rather miniscule cost (a fraction of the discretionary spending of the federal government) of the wars in the Middle East. It's about out-of-control entitlements. Unless we have some actual entitlement reform, we can not recover from the debt. You characterize "the rich" as having a great time during the Bush years, but have you ever stopped to think of who "the rich" are? Answer this for me: Who hires people, the rich or the poor? The only way to encourage employers to hire is to help their bottom line.
@kolsti87 (521)
• United States
17 Jul 10
Well we could cut some of the aspects of the program but the main thing is getting out of the middle east, restoring the old taxes that didn't give the rich such a great time. Also, if we get the economic rut ended the government will have more tax revenue. I don't think we'll ever get out of it completely but we need to do something.
@kolsti87 (521)
• United States
17 Jul 10
Yes, while the rich do the hiring, they aren't not hiring because taxes are too high, they aren't hiring because they are bad businesses. If I sell bad products or bad services, I make bad money. Also, the poor will do more with the money to help the economy because they will spend it and help those businesses by buying stuff. If they don't have money, they can't buy stuff. If the rich get money, they save it, invest it, etc. The poor buy gas to go to work, buy food for their families and this helps the economy
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
17 Jul 10
Why is everyone blaming the Bush tax cuts? It may have compounded the whole mess but they aren't the only thing responsible for perpetuating it. If anything is to blame it is the list that you gave, health care, unemployment, social security, medicare, and medicaid. Not to mention the two wars, the "rebuilding of Iraq", all the aid going to foreign countries, the bailouts, the stimulus, the BRAND NEW health care bill, Fannie, Freddie Mae, the earmarks, the "special pet projects" of Congressmen, and the list goes on and on and on. The Bush tax cuts are only a small part of the overall picture. It seems everyone is blaming them but they have absolutely nothing to do with the spending craze that Congress is on at the moment. Sure they added to the deficit but NAME ONE PROGRAM THAT CONGRESS HAS PASSED THAT HASN'T DONE THAT. How much income do you really think it will bring in? Probably not even a tenth of what Congress is spending now. If anything, the expiration of the tax cuts are sending Small Business owners into a hiring freeze. (They are the number one group that actually hires people.) You are right though, putting more people to work would lessen the burden on the social programs, and put more people into paying taxes (thus more income for government). The recent legislation that has been passed has spun the whole business market into uncertainty. Not just health care but the new financial regulations, the new tax laws, and so on. It is that uncertainty that is driving the hiring freeze. This current administration has to stop and let the businesses catch up to the new rules in place. They have to give them time to evaluate their costs, expenses, the economy, the new tax rules, the whole picture and decide the best path to travel in to grow. If you don't know what next week will bring, how can you hire anyone especially if by next week you might be bankrupt. The banks aren't helping either. They are holding the keys to business expansion but aren't giving them out to anyone. See President Obama is doing exactly the opposite of restoring the faith in the economy. Instead, he is spreading the fear and uncertainty with each new piece of legislation that is coming up. Like it or not, it is in his hands now and he can no longer blame Bush for his signing of the spending bills. (Unless the absurd claim is being made that Bush is actually forging President Obama's name on all of these new bills.) You do realize that Congress doesn't even have a budget for next year and their new budget year starts in October? BTW President Clinton never had the national debt down to zero. There was still a National debt even with all of that so-called surplus in the budget.
@kolsti87 (521)
• United States
17 Jul 10
I never said Clinton had it at zero but with the huge surplus maybe we could see what changed between Clinton and Obama (hint: Bush). Hopefully we can look at what happened and fix it.
• United States
18 Jul 10
Do news organizations not know the meaning of the word surplus? A surplus means no debt with money left over. The same applies to the National debt. The closest the debt was ever being paid of was when Andrew Jackson was in office. He was the one President who abhorred the idea of debt and he never got it totally down to zero. President Clinton was also President when Social Security was still taking in more than it paid out and during the dot com bubble that existed in the 90s. In this case, it wasn't just his policies but the economy's growth at that time. The bubble burst in 2000. When it did a lot of his revenue sources started drying up which is why the debt jumped in his last year in office. (Remember for the government the financial year starts in October not in January.) Also President Clinton handed about $133 billion dollars in debt to President Bush. President Clinton's most successful pay down was his third year in office, not his fourth which was about the same time the dot com bubble burst.
• United States
18 Jul 10
But if you want to look at tax rates, England has already implemented a 50% tax on those who make over what would be equivalent to $233,000 a year (give or take a few dollars.) It really hasn't helped them at all.
@Chiolo (28)
• China
17 Jul 10
Hi, kolsti financial crisis causing troubles for all the countries. China looks better because the government keep too much money in its hand. Not like US, mostly the money was kept by the company and people. But we should not be too anxious about the status. financial crisis will take the bubbles away from industy economy. And you and your country will be back to the scientific, correct way of developing soon. The one who really face to crisis is China, if we can not go in the correct deveoping way.(I'm Chinese :) )
@kolsti87 (521)
• United States
17 Jul 10
In America we often end up getting mad at China because they are on the rise and we are on the decline. Nice to know that someone else thinks we'll become better eventually.