• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Some Austerity

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,244
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
It is clear we must enter an age of austerity,” House minority leader Nancy Pelosi mourned as she endorsed Harry Reid’s proposal for raising the debt ceiling. Austerity? Really?


The Reid plan would theoretically cut spending by $2.7 trillion over ten years. Even if that were true, it would still allow our national debt to increase by some $10 trillion over the next decade. But, of course, the $2.7 trillion figure is mostly fiction. About $1 trillion of the savings would come from the eventual end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, savings that were going to occur anyway. Senator Reid might just as well have added another $1 trillion in savings by not invading Pakistan.

This month alone the federal government will borrow $134 billion. Reid’s cuts would average roughly $120 billion per year.

This is austerity?

Of course, the House Republican plan as announced by Speaker John Boehner is only marginally more austere.

Some Austerity - Michael Tanner - National Review Online
Click to expand...

It's a good read.
 
I think it is inevitable that we are going to have to cut our spending. However, this alone does not mean revenues cannot be increased (but this is another discussion I think). On NPR's planet money, an IMF economic cited that the no return point for a nation is a debt of 90% to 100% of GDP, but raised the point that the US is in a special place, so its probably higher for us. Its unfortunate, but its reality.

Because of this, we have to accept that people are going to die, not receive their due liberties, and have a host of other issues that the spending helped with. Again, it sucks, but we have only so many available resources. :(
 
megaprogman said:
I think it is inevitable that we are going to have to cut our spending. However, this alone does not mean revenues cannot be increased (but this is another discussion I think). On NPR's planet money, an IMF economic cited that the no return point for a nation is a debt of 90% to 100% of GDP, but raised the point that the US is in a special place, so its probably higher for us. Its unfortunate, but its reality.

Because of this, we have to accept that people are going to die, not receive their due liberties, and have a host of other issues that the spending helped with. Again, it sucks, but we have only so many available resources. :(
Click to expand...

What good is revenue raising when spending keep going UP?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom