• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

The Trillion Dollar Budget: A proposal

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I propose a solution to our budgetary woes:

A limit to spending of $750,000,000,000.00, and $250,000,000,000.00

The $750b would cover Military, CIA, FBI, Diplomatic, Immigration, NASA and basic Federal Spending.

The $250b would go towards debt.

All other spending would cease, all taxes taken in over the year in excess sans INTEREST ON NATIONAL DEBT, would be refunded back to those that were over taxed, tax rates would be lowered until nominal parity with taxation and spending were reached. This would allow lower tax rates as the principle amounts owed dropped.

What would this do?

First it would solidify the national economic situation; we wouldn't be going broke. Over time our debt would eventually zero out. Yes, it would take many years, but those are years we must atone for, and either do it now, smartly, or watch the system implode to the detriment of all.

Secondly, where would that excess money GO? Why into the hands of PEOPLE! The Markets, the economic boom that would follow such a move, as Capital was no longer tied up into the machine that is Government and instead used to CREATE wealth... would be staggering.

Finally, the stable, strong US dollar would help calm world markets, and put the "global economy" back on an upward trajectory.

The only reason such a path is not taken, is there is no political gain to be had from allowing free peoples to use resources. This was the madness that FDR brought upon us, and it's high time we closed the book on his failures, once and for all.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,491
Reaction score
51,365
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
If by "solidify the national economic situation", you mean drive us into a depression, you would be correct. 2010 federal budget was 3.46 trillion. Cutting over 14 % from the economy would be devastating. Your proposal would also gut the military(with total spending being about equal to just military spending now. Your economic boom would be a bust.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
If by "solidify the national economic situation", you mean drive us into a depression, you would be correct. 2010 federal budget was 3.46 trillion. Cutting over 14 % from the economy would be devastating. Your proposal would also gut the military(with total spending being about equal to just military spending now. Your economic boom would be a bust.
You proceed from the false premise that GOVERNMENT creates wealth, it doesn't. It takes it, irresponsibly and inefficiently, and redistributes it. Seriously Redress, to read your comments you'd think that without government spending... there would be no money! Waht, do you think it just magically appears?
 

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
69,460
Reaction score
15,332
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You proceed from the false premise that GOVERNMENT creates wealth, it doesn't. It takes it, irresponsibly and inefficiently, and redistributes it. Seriously Redress, to read your comments you'd think that without government spending... there would be no money! Waht, do you think it just magically appears?
Actually, the government just prints more money.
 

Kernel Sanders

Norville Rogers
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
3,730
Reaction score
1,931
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Enormous, system wide, sweeping changes like that are impossible in the real world. What happens to the millions of Americans relying on medicare to get the drugs they need to live out the next month? The seniors who rely on Social security to eat? How is the lumbering bureaucracy that comprises the military going to make the radical adjustment that such budget constraints would entail? America is a social/military spending addict and going cold turkey would kill the country. It's a nice sentiment, and if such a system had been written into the constitution centuries ago we would probably be in a better place today. But it wasn't, and that's not how the country works, and we have to deal with the reality of the situation as it exists today. The spending problems we have accumulated over decades, and will take decades to solve even if you can motivate the entire nation and political body to tackle them seriously (which isn't going to happen).
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Actually, the government just prints more money.
Which creates more wealth disparity and more people that are poor. The people are to buy it is because of the wealthy and greed, but it is because of legalized counterfeiting.
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I propose a solution to our budgetary woes:

A limit to spending of $750,000,000,000.00, and $250,000,000,000.00

The $750b would cover Military, CIA, FBI, Diplomatic, Immigration, NASA and basic Federal Spending.

The $250b would go towards debt.

All other spending would cease, all taxes taken in over the year in excess sans INTEREST ON NATIONAL DEBT, would be refunded back to those that were over taxed, tax rates would be lowered until nominal parity with taxation and spending were reached. This would allow lower tax rates as the principle amounts owed dropped.

What would this do?

First it would solidify the national economic situation; we wouldn't be going broke. Over time our debt would eventually zero out. Yes, it would take many years, but those are years we must atone for, and either do it now, smartly, or watch the system implode to the detriment of all.

Secondly, where would that excess money GO? Why into the hands of PEOPLE! The Markets, the economic boom that would follow such a move, as Capital was no longer tied up into the machine that is Government and instead used to CREATE wealth... would be staggering.

Finally, the stable, strong US dollar would help calm world markets, and put the "global economy" back on an upward trajectory.

The only reason such a path is not taken, is there is no political gain to be had from allowing free peoples to use resources. This was the madness that FDR brought upon us, and it's high time we closed the book on his failures, once and for all.
Exactly how is that created wealth to get into the hands of the "people"? Because the wealth being created by the people right now isn't finding it's way into their hands... productivity is way up, overall profits are up, directors salaries and bonuses are up far beyond the precious two... and worker compensation for creating the goods and supplying the services.. down. If it's failing to work right now, what the hell makes you think it will happen with your plan?

Seriously, I want to know how you intend to make sure that wealth makes it to the hands that make the wealth... the producers.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,491
Reaction score
51,365
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Actually, the government just prints more money.
And borrows money, and a large portion of tax revenue is money that would not be spent in the economy, but in the market. Bringing facts into a discussion is so unfair.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Exactly how is that created wealth to get into the hands of the "people"? Because the wealth being created by the people right now isn't finding it's way into their hands... productivity is way up, overall profits are up, directors salaries and bonuses are up far beyond the precious two... and worker compensation for creating the goods and supplying the services.. down. If it's failing to work right now, what the hell makes you think it will happen with your plan?

Seriously, I want to know how you intend to make sure that wealth makes it to the hands that make the wealth... the producers.
The fallacy of your stance is that Government somehow gets money to the "producers". The "producers" are those that invest capital into the system.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
And borrows money, and a large portion of tax revenue is money that would not be spent in the economy, but in the market. Bringing facts into a discussion is so unfair.
Would love to see you bring some. Taxes taken out are a far greater negative influence then money "doled" out.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Enormous, system wide, sweeping changes like that are impossible in the real world. What happens to the millions of Americans relying on medicare to get the drugs they need to live out the next month? The seniors who rely on Social security to eat? How is the lumbering bureaucracy that comprises the military going to make the radical adjustment that such budget constraints would entail? America is a social/military spending addict and going cold turkey would kill the country. It's a nice sentiment, and if such a system had been written into the constitution centuries ago we would probably be in a better place today. But it wasn't, and that's not how the country works, and we have to deal with the reality of the situation as it exists today. The spending problems we have accumulated over decades, and will take decades to solve even if you can motivate the entire nation and political body to tackle them seriously (which isn't going to happen).
The system is going to implode. You can either say it's "too hard to fix" and pray you aren't around for the implosion, or be a part of the solution.
 

Keridan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
4,184
Reaction score
2,150
Location
Raleigh NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sorry, I'm libertarian and even I can't get behind this plan. I think there needs to be TONS of cuts to our current spending, including entitlements. However the solution is never to immediately and drastically change the current system without allowing for transition. In the end, I think we should be spending less, but it should be moved to gradually. Millions of people have paid into social security, for instance, and wouldn't be able to collect. Education needs to be taken out of the governments control, but the answer to that is not to close all schools and tell the private sector to pick it up in a hurry.

I would love to see government scaled back in most aspects of life, but even in my dreams of that happening, it is done through a transitional period.
 

whysoserious

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
8,170
Reaction score
3,199
Location
Charlotte, NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Would love to see you bring some. Taxes taken out are a far greater negative influence then money "doled" out.
Under your plan, the lower and middle classes would be screwed. Those are major parts of the economy because they generally spend most of the money that they earn, due to the fact that they don't have much extra cash on hand. Then, by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, health clinics, WIC, et al, and simultaneously raising taxes on them while lowering their wages (since you want to remove unions and the minimum wage), you'll drive most people out of their houses and apartments. So now, not only are these people doing less retail shopping, but you've now just caused a second housing collapse.

Well played.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sorry, I'm libertarian and even I can't get behind this plan. I think there needs to be TONS of cuts to our current spending, including entitlements. However the solution is never to immediately and drastically change the current system without allowing for transition. In the end, I think we should be spending less, but it should be moved to gradually. Millions of people have paid into social security, for instance, and wouldn't be able to collect. Education needs to be taken out of the governments control, but the answer to that is not to close all schools and tell the private sector to pick it up in a hurry.

I would love to see government scaled back in most aspects of life, but even in my dreams of that happening, it is done through a transitional period.
It's a starting point for discussion. I firmly believe that we are headed down a path of self destruction, and we either fix it, or implode, the time for "doing it slowly" is quickly passing us by.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Under your plan, the lower and middle classes would be screwed. Those are major parts of the economy because they generally spend most of the money that they earn, due to the fact that they don't have much extra cash on hand. Then, by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, health clinics, WIC, et al, and simultaneously raising taxes on them while lowering their wages (since you want to remove unions and the minimum wage), you'll drive most people out of their houses and apartments. So now, not only are these people doing less retail shopping, but you've now just caused a second housing collapse.

Well played.
No, they would actually make out, but you have to let go of this false god known as "Government".
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,491
Reaction score
51,365
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Would love to see you bring some. Taxes taken out are a far greater negative influence then money "doled" out.
Fact: you eliminated the government borrowing money.

Fact: a significant portion of money collected in taxes would not be spent on anything which grows the economy.

Fact: Your plan would reduce GDP by 14 %, and expects the private sector to make that up, with no basis for that conclusion other than you say it will.

Fact: Fact, despite you saying they would make it up, they would have to do so with less money than the government had to play with to do it.

Fact: since you have eliminated spending on welfare, unemployment, SS, Medicare and foodstamps(among others), the people who do the lions share of spending will have less money to do it with.

Fact: with less money to spend, demand goes down.

Fact: when some one proposes a simple solution to a complex problem, it shows that they have no clue what they are talking about.
 

whysoserious

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
8,170
Reaction score
3,199
Location
Charlotte, NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No, they would actually make out, but you have to let go of this false god known as "Government".
Please explain this voodoo where you give people less government money, remove any barrier to lower wages, and then, as if that wasn't enough, you tax them even more, but they make out? I am dying for this explanation. And can you show it mathematically? I can show it wouldn't work mathematically, so let's see it.

This is going to be fun.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,491
Reaction score
51,365
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It's a starting point for discussion. I firmly believe that we are headed down a path of self destruction, and we either fix it, or implode, the time for "doing it slowly" is quickly passing us by.
You base that on what evidence? Cuz no facts actually bear that out. The truth is, if you want to do it and do it right and do it without destroying the economy first, then you have to do it slowly.
 

Keridan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
4,184
Reaction score
2,150
Location
Raleigh NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It's a starting point for discussion. I firmly believe that we are headed down a path of self destruction, and we either fix it, or implode, the time for "doing it slowly" is quickly passing us by.
I understand that you are trying to discuss what you see as an answer. There's nothing wrong with that. But, I'm just continuing the discussion with my point.

If you feel that an immediate and drastic solution is the only one, then revolution is the only answer. What you are talking about boils down to essentially replacing the current governmental system overnight.

I agree that we need to cut back government. In my opinion, though, the only way to do it is in steps. If the last few years has taught us anything, it's that expectation is a critical point in how our economy and social system behave. Why can't the answer be that "over the next 10 years, we will be changing everything in huge ways...". The market will react, people will react, and they will have time to prepare.

I'm intentionally leaving out some details of what I think an answer would be. It would take us down a whole other train of debate and I'm tired :p
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Fact: you eliminated the government borrowing money.
Yes. And?
Fact: a significant portion of money collected in taxes would not be spent on anything which grows the economy.
Fallacy. What, do you think money just goes under mattresses? It get's invested, back into companies to help them grow (that's how hiring expands), into other companies, into banks which use said funds to loan to others for start ups...

Fact: Your plan would reduce GDP by 14 %, and expects the private sector to make that up, with no basis for that conclusion other than you say it will.
FACT, the 14% the rest is your Kensyan fallacy at work.
Fact: Fact, despite you saying they would make it up, they would have to do so with less money than the government had to play with to do it.
Wrong. With the lessened burdens of taxation, regulation plus a clear, concise strong confidence the Government is no longer a hindrance, growth would result. Again, your premise is that Government is what makes success.
Fact: since you have eliminated spending on welfare, unemployment, SS, Medicare and foodstamps(among others), the people who do the lions share of spending will have less money to do it with.
And better opportunities for employment, unless you suggest it's better for people to live off others then for themselves. Plus families, communities, charities would be there to help the truly needy, not those that will vote for more free ****.
Fact: with less money to spend, demand goes down.
Kensyian fallacy at work folks.
Fact: when some one proposes a simple solution to a complex problem, it shows that they have no clue what they are talking about.
You are the clueless one, and your blind faith in Government dismisses you from serious consideration.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
You base that on what evidence? Cuz no facts actually bear that out. The truth is, if you want to do it and do it right and do it without destroying the economy first, then you have to do it slowly.
The truth is, you believe only GOVERNMENT is the answer, we're at the precipice of disaster, Europe is all ready in free fall, but also, in denial. Greece is about to go down a dark hole, Italy is staring at the abyss, and when those two finally give up the ghost... all of Europe will be in flames.

Wake up Redress, you preach a false economic model, and the world is suffering for it.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,491
Reaction score
51,365
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Yes. And?
I figured that was self evident, but since you missed it...that is removing money from the economy.

Fallacy. What, do you think money just goes under mattresses? It get's invested, back into companies to help them grow (that's how hiring expands), into other companies, into banks which use said funds to loan to others for start ups...
Once again, demand drives employment. All the investment in the stock market does not drive demand or employment.

FACT, the 14% the rest is your Kensyan fallacy at work.
So if the private sector having to make it up is a fallacy, what would replace the 14 %?
Wrong. With the lessened burdens of taxation, regulation plus a clear, concise strong confidence the Government is no longer a hindrance, growth would result. Again, your premise is that Government is what makes success.
I have already proven there would be less money in the economy, since the government could no longer borrow.

And better opportunities for employment, unless you suggest it's better for people to live off others then for themselves. Plus families, communities, charities would be there to help the truly needy, not those that will vote for more free ****.
Less demand for goods and services does not make for higher employment. Quite the opposite.
Kensyian fallacy at work folks.
LoLZ. SO how are people buying goods and services when they have less money?

You are the clueless one, and your blind faith in Government dismisses you from serious consideration.
Only one of us is trying to modify a complex system with simple ideas....
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,491
Reaction score
51,365
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The truth is, you believe only GOVERNMENT is the answer, we're at the precipice of disaster, Europe is all ready in free fall, but also, in denial. Greece is about to go down a dark hole, Italy is staring at the abyss, and when those two finally give up the ghost... all of Europe will be in flames.

Wake up Redress, you preach a false economic model, and the world is suffering for it.
And now not only are you not backing up your post with facts, you are building straw men(hint: I never said nor believe only government is the answer), but I also don't buy into the "we are on the precipice" nonsense I have heard spouted for 30 years. As long as we do not react radically(which your plan would be), we do have some time to fix things, and doing things slowly and methodically, without huge changes that will have consequences none of us can foresee is a much better way of doing things. Looking for simple, fast solutions to a complex problem that took a long time to create is a recipe for disaster.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is no strawman here. You claim that the GOVERNMENT, not borrowing money, and not spending money forcibly taken out of the economy through taxes, would reduce demand.

There is no further proof needed then the abject failure of "Stimulus Package". It FAILED to create demand.

There is no further proof needed then the 1929-1940's record of massive government taxation and spending driving down demand, increasing unemployment and wrecking the economy.

History shows you are DEAD WRONG in believing the myth that Government drives demand. The ONLY time that worked, was WWII, and that was a completely different animal.


Did you watch the video I provided, no? Pity you have blinders on. This is what makes you so easy to prove wrong.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The fallacy of your stance is that Government somehow gets money to the "producers". The "producers" are those that invest capital into the system.
That doesn't make them "producers". That makes them "investors." They use their wealth as capital to be spent on ventures that would create a profit. But that doesn't mean they actually produce anything.

And "producers" aren't "executives" either. Rather, they make policies for the company to follow. But that doesn't mean they actually perform the services or produce goods that are sold to consumers.

Rather, the "producers" are those employees and workers who earn wages that actually make the goods or actually perform the services.
 
Top Bottom