Why a Balanced Budget is an Elusive Ideal

[Rhapsody1447]

Professor Antony Davies of George Mason eloquently dissects why the concept of a balanced budget is fiscally impossible.



Disclaimer: By making this post I am not advocating the need for a balanced budget tomorrow. The video is meant to show why it's simply not a reality any time soon.

 

[Xerographica]

A balanced budget wouldn't be a problem in the public sector any more than it is in the non-profit sector...if taxpayers could directly allocate their taxes...The Magna Carta Movement.

 

[pdog]

It does do a nice job of turning government spending into something people can relate to.

 

[NAKED N00B]

We ran a balanced budget a decade ago. What has fundamentally shifted?

The difference is slightly lower taxes on the majority, and significantly lower on the wealthiest of the wealthy, and the current economic climate. Radically reduced revenues and increased spending on safety nets necessary in this economy are not a structural shift in the role of government and they don't require fundamental restructuring.

 

[Baralis]

Professor Antony Davies of George Mason eloquently dissects why the concept of a balanced budget is fiscally impossible.



Disclaimer: By making this post I am not advocating the need for a balanced budget tomorrow. The video is meant to show why it's simply not a reality any time soon.

By his example it may be true but he also refused to touch a couple of our largest expenditures. If he had reduced or removed SS and medicare programs the outcome would have been very different. I am not saying what we should or shouldn't do I am just pointing out his not so honest approach.

 

[radcen]

Professor Antony Davies of George Mason eloquently dissects why the concept of a balanced budget is fiscally impossible.

Disclaimer: By making this post I am not advocating the need for a balanced budget tomorrow. The video is meant to show why it's simply not a reality any time soon.

Won't happen anytime soon, no. Perpetually impossible? No, also.

A balanced budget wouldn't be a problem in the public sector any more than it is in the non-profit sector...if taxpayers could directly allocate their taxes...The Magna Carta Movement.

A more boneheaded tax theory does not exist.

We ran a balanced budget a decade ago. What has fundamentally shifted?

No, we did not. Not if you are intellectually honest and count total actual money in vs total actual money out. It was close, but it was smoke-and-mirrors.

 

[Xerographica]

A more boneheaded tax theory does not exist.

Why is it a boneheaded tax theory to give taxpayers the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their own, hard-earned taxes to?

 

[NAKED N00B]

No, we did not. Not if you are intellectually honest and count total actual money in vs total actual money out. It was close, but it was smoke-and-mirrors.

Educate me. I haven't seen anyone object to that claim before.

What is wrong with this measurement?

 

[Cameron]

Professor Antony Davies of George Mason eloquently dissects why the concept of a balanced budget is fiscally impossible.



Disclaimer: By making this post I am not advocating the need for a balanced budget tomorrow. The video is meant to show why it's simply not a reality any time soon.

This is a weird video. The obvious conclusion is that we can't solve the budget deficit without reforming Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the other welfare programs. He is trying to spin that into it's not possible to solve the budget at all? That is patently untrue.

Obviously these programs need to be reformed. The hardships and inequities that would create need to be balanced by raising taxes. In other words, a compromise solution is required. End of story.

 

[makmugens]

In the video, he also seems to forget that the money the government "gets" is also borrowed money, or debt. He also seems to say that having a fiscally balanced budget is impossible so...leave it unbalanced? Or did I just read that wrong?

It doesn't matter if it's the war department or medicare, (and by the way, all that money stated for the War Department does not include the unofficial black budget money that remains unaudited and unaccounted for by testament of Donald Rumsfeld himself) your certainly not going to begin paying this massive debt without taking away from some priority things. Just ask the third-world nations that are so in debt to us that they can't pay for education and social infrastructure and auxilllaries themselves. Just like a large personal debt, it's going to be either swift and devastating or slow and painful.

 

[Cephus]

This is a weird video. The obvious conclusion is that we can't solve the budget deficit without reforming Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the other welfare programs. He is trying to spin that into it's not possible to solve the budget at all? That is patently untrue.

Obviously these programs need to be reformed. The hardships and inequities that would create need to be balanced by raising taxes. In other words, a compromise solution is required. End of story.

And he refuses to even touch those programs because somehow we "owe" it to these people. I call BS. We don't owe anyone anything. We can balance the budget but it's going to hurt and nobody wants to do anything that hurts, especially liberals. It means we have to stop spending money we don't have, no matter what it is that we have to do without. It means we might have to significantly cut the government itself. It means we'll have to cut military spending and absolutely welfare spending. It means we'll have to hold individuals accountable for their own well-being instead of getting a government check.

But liberals don't want to do any of those things. It'll cost them votes.

 

[Xerographica]

But liberals don't want to do any of those things. It'll cost them votes.

Nobody gets elected by promising to take things away from voters. It's clear that congress has a conflict of interest...they might recognize that it's necessary to cut things...but it's in their self-interest to remain in office. In their minds...they rationalize it by saying that they can do more good in office then they can out of office.

Therefore, the long-term solution to the problem is to give taxpayers the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their own, individual hard-earned taxes to. No more budget problems. The supply of public goods would be determined by the demand for public goods. There's absolutely no reason that there should be a disparity between what 150 million taxpayers demand and what the government supplies.

 

[makmugens]

Nobody gets elected by promising to take things away from voters. It's clear that congress has a conflict of interest...they might recognize that it's necessary to cut things...but it's in their self-interest to remain in office. In their minds...they rationalize it by saying that they can do more good in office then they can out of office.

Therefore, the long-term solution to the problem is to give taxpayers the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their own, individual hard-earned taxes to. No more budget problems. The supply of public goods would be determined by the demand for public goods. There's absolutely no reason that there should be a disparity between what 150 million taxpayers demand and what the government supplies.

The problem with that is that most of the taxes taken from the people don't return to the people. They go to things like the National Debt and the defense department, which includes Homeland Security, NSA, and all their associated projects like building bases all over the Middle East. Taxes also pay for a lot of other things you probably wouldn't approve of but social welfare, national infrastructure, and the like are not really considered priority.

 

[Xerographica]

The problem with that is that most of the taxes taken from the people don't return to the people. They go to things like the National Debt and the defense department, which includes Homeland Security, NSA, and all their associated projects like building bases all over the Middle East. Taxes also pay for a lot of other things you probably wouldn't approve of but social welfare, national infrastructure, and the like are not really considered priority.

The idea of tax choice is that taxpayers would have the freedom to choose exactly which government organizations they gave their own, individual, hard-earned taxes to. If taxpayers are unwilling to pay the government to do something...then there's absolutely no reason for the government to do it. If taxpayers are unwilling to pay the government to study unicorns...then there's absolutely no reason that the government should study unicorns.

 

[Cameron]

The idea of tax choice is that taxpayers would have the freedom to choose exactly which government organizations they gave their own, individual, hard-earned taxes to. If taxpayers are unwilling to pay the government to do something...then there's absolutely no reason for the government to do it. If taxpayers are unwilling to pay the government to study unicorns...then there's absolutely no reason that the government should study unicorns.

The government is not studying unicorns. Your idea as a theoretical matter makes sense, but as a practical matter, it is terrible and would make disastrous policy. First of all, most people would probably choose not to give any money to fund the federal government, which would be awful. Second, there would be a huge degree of instability and uncertainty regarding how much money each department or sector would be getting every year, which would make planning and long term projects completely infeasible. It would destroy our government system. Maybe that's what you really want. I don't know.

 

[Xerographica]

The government is not studying unicorns. Your idea as a theoretical matter makes sense, but as a practical matter, it is terrible and would make disastrous policy. First of all, most people would probably choose not to give any money to fund the federal government, which would be awful. Second, there would be a huge degree of instability and uncertainty regarding how much money each department or sector would be getting every year, which would make planning and long term projects completely infeasible. It would destroy our government system. Maybe that's what you really want. I don't know.

Regarding your first point...taxes wouldn't be optional so people would have to pay taxes. Regarding your second point...how frequently do your values change? If you get a chance check out this page....Unglamorous but Important Things. If you search that page for "disaster" you'll find where I added your comment.

 

[Matt Foley]

Professor Antony Davies of George Mason eloquently dissects why the concept of a balanced budget is fiscally impossible.



Disclaimer: By making this post I am not advocating the need for a balanced budget tomorrow. The video is meant to show why it's simply not a reality any time soon.

The biggest budget items are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Yeah we all know this, any new information here?

 

[Matt Foley]

And he refuses to even touch those programs because somehow we "owe" it to these people. I call BS. We don't owe anyone anything. We can balance the budget but it's going to hurt and nobody wants to do anything that hurts, especially liberals. It means we have to stop spending money we don't have, no matter what it is that we have to do without. It means we might have to significantly cut the government itself. It means we'll have to cut military spending and absolutely welfare spending. It means we'll have to hold individuals accountable for their own well-being instead of getting a government check.

But liberals don't want to do any of those things. It'll cost them votes.

Old people vote allot.

Stop old people from voting, problem solved.