Will the federal government ever have a budget surplus again?

[radcen]

Will the federal government ever have a budget surplus again?

Maybe this would be a better way to phrase the question: Can you foresee the government ever having a budget surplus again in your lifetime?

 

[PoS]

There ought to be a law that the gubmint has to get a budget surplus or they go to jail.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Not as long as they can control the amount of money that is placed in circulation through the Federal Reserve system. They see no need.

They can simply borrow, and borrow, and borrow...and print more money. :shrug:

 

[ocean515]

Will the federal government ever have a budget surplus again?

Maybe this would be a better way to phrase the question: Can you foresee the government ever having a budget surplus again in your lifetime?

With your better way qualifier, I answered no.

As the demographics of the nation continue to change, and the government ignores the need to expand the tax base, revenue versus expense will continue to add to deficits and debt. I can' see that changing in my life time.

 

[Ikari]

Will the federal government ever have a budget surplus again?

Maybe this would be a better way to phrase the question: Can you foresee the government ever having a budget surplus again in your lifetime?

Oh god no. They're friends and business partners need to get paid. We will never have a surplus again.

 

[eohrnberger]

With your better way qualifier, I answered no.

As the demographics of the nation continue to change, and the government ignores the need to expand the tax base, revenue versus expense will continue to add to deficits and debt. I can' see that changing in my life time.

Agreed.

Given the rate at which the non-discretionary budget items are increasing they are squeezing out any discretionary budget items.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Will the federal government ever have a budget surplus again?

Maybe this would be a better way to phrase the question: Can you foresee the government ever having a budget surplus again in your lifetime?

Why the hell should we want a government surplus?

 

[jonny5]

Will the federal government ever have a budget surplus again?

Maybe this would be a better way to phrase the question: Can you foresee the government ever having a budget surplus again in your lifetime?

We were pretty close under Bush, so I say yes. Just have to wait for the right circumstances. A president who thinks its a priority, and a favorable economy.

2004 -412,727
2005 -318,346
2006 -248,181
2007 -160,701

 

[jonny5]

Why the hell should we want a government surplus?

No one bite, please.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

No one bite, please.

Yes, jonny - don't bite off more than you can competently chew. If you can't answer the question, avoid it at all costs.

 

[radcen]

We were pretty close under Bush, so I say yes. Just have to wait for the right circumstances. A president who thinks its a priority, and a favorable economy.

2004 -412,727
2005 -318,346
2006 -248,181
2007 -160,701

Agree it would take a President who considers it a priority AND a favorable economy, but there's another factor, too... the people. Regardless what the people say regarding the deficit, they still clamor for more and more from the government, and that stuff gets politicians re-elected, so until the people stop doing that I don't see anything changing.

 

[faithful_servant]

Will the federal government ever have a budget surplus again?

Maybe this would be a better way to phrase the question: Can you foresee the government ever having a budget surplus again in your lifetime?

Doubtful.

It would require that our society focus on our responsibilities as a path to our rights, instead of focusing only on our rights and to hell with our responsibilities.

It would require term limits to put in place to get rid of most of the motivation to spend tax $$ to keep getting re-elected.

It would require that we get rid of public employee unions.

It would require a strong 'workfare' program.

It would require that we implement a phased move to semi-privatized SSI.

It would require that we cut military costs through massive consolidation of the 5 branches.

 

[faithful_servant]

Why the hell should we want a government surplus?

It would allow us to cut tax rates and leave more money the hands of the People, further stimulating the economy, creating more productive jobs, putting more resources to work, making us stronger economically on the global stage (giving us more leverage to use more non-military solutions to int'l situations). I know, it's small potatoes when you compare it to running the in the red so that people are more and more dependent on the gov't.

 

[fmw]

Why the hell should we want a government surplus?

Because the current system has less longevity than surpluses and paying down the debt. At some point you dilute the value of money and raise debt interest payments to unsustainable levels. The old expression that there is no free lunch applies to governments as well.

 

[faithful_servant]

We were pretty close under Bush, so I say yes. Just have to wait for the right circumstances. A president who thinks its a priority, and a favorable economy.

2004 -412,727
2005 -318,346
2006 -248,181
2007 -160,701

Not really the President, but more like Congress.

 

[mike2810]

Voted. No.

As long as we have people in Congress who cannot say "no" to special pet projects/bill riders, and cannot figure out how to balance a budget. It seems the mindset for many in Congress is to just keep on spending.

 

[Helix]

Will the federal government ever have a budget surplus again?

depends on a lot of factors. i wouldn't be surprised if it happened during my lifetime. i also wouldn't be surprised if it didn't.

 

[Winchester]

Agree it would take a President who considers it a priority AND a favorable economy, but there's another factor, too... the people. Regardless what the people say regarding the deficit, they still clamor for more and more from the government, and that stuff gets politicians re-elected, so until the people stop doing that I don't see anything changing.

Politicians get elected by promising stuff and lowering taxes. Has there ever been a politician elected that said we need to cut back services and raise your taxes?

 

[jonny5]

Agree it would take a President who considers it a priority AND a favorable economy, but there's another factor, too... the people. Regardless what the people say regarding the deficit, they still clamor for more and more from the government, and that stuff gets politicians re-elected, so until the people stop doing that I don't see anything changing.

They dont really care though. Theyll go along with what the govt tells them. How do you think we got here?

 

[jonny5]

Not really the President, but more like Congress.

Congress is already willing, they just cant get a President to go along. They had to force Clinton into it. This congress wont do that.

 

[Critter7r]

It would allow us to cut tax rates and leave more money the hands of the People ...

after having first raised taxes significantly and taken more money from the hands of the People ....

further stimulating the economy ...

after having decimated it ...

creating more productive jobs ...

Do you mean an increased number of jobs that are productive? Or jobs that are of increased productivity? It probably doesn't matter either way though, because first, we'll have to get the private sector to ramp up their spending by a half-billion annually just to take up the slack of the government's spending (because they can't run a half-billion dollar deficit if they're running a profit), and then spend MORE in order to effect this job creation you speak of.

putting more resources to work, making us stronger economically on the global stage (giving us more leverage to use more non-military solutions to int'l situations). I know, it's small potatoes when you compare it to running the in the red so that people are more and more dependent on the gov't.

rhetoric

 

[jaeger19]

after having first raised taxes significantly and taken more money from the hands of the People ....



after having decimated it ...



Do you mean an increased number of jobs that are productive? Or jobs that are of increased productivity? It probably doesn't matter either way though, because first, we'll have to get the private sector to ramp up their spending by a half-billion annually just to take up the slack of the government's spending (because they can't run a half-billion dollar deficit if they're running a profit), and then spend MORE in order to effect this job creation you speak of.



rhetoric

We fairly recently had a balanced budget.. did it "decimate the economy"..

Surely Clinton who went along with the deal is the most hated politician by the democrats correct?

Come down from the hyperbole. Just sayin.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

It would allow us to cut tax rates and leave more money the hands of the People, further stimulating the economy, creating more productive jobs, putting more resources to work, making us stronger economically on the global stage (giving us more leverage to use more non-military solutions to int'l situations). I know, it's small potatoes when you compare it to running the in the red so that people are more and more dependent on the gov't.

You need to understand what a government surplus is; it is when the govt. taxes away more money than it spends. And that's it - they don't do anything with that money - that's why it's a surplus. If they spent it all, it would be a balanced budget. The govt. doesn't earn interest on money it "saves." So let's take your claims point by point:

It would allow us to cut tax rates and leave more money the hands of the People - no, higher taxes remove money from the people. A surplus doesn't lower your taxes, it raises them.

further stimulating the economy, - less money spent does not stimulate the economy, it hurts it. Not only does the government spend a lot of money via deficit spending, but your higher taxes would prevent you from spending as much as you normally spend.

creating more productive jobs, - if the economy is damages, jobs would be lost, not gained.

making us stronger economically on the global stage - a damaged economy does not make a country stronger.

(giving us more leverage to use more non-military solutions to int'l situations). - a weaker economy gives us no extra leverage. Plus, our military would undoubtedly suffer if the government cut back so much that it ran a surplus.

 

[Critter7r]

We fairly recently had a balanced budget.. did it "decimate the economy"..

Surely Clinton who went along with the deal is the most hated politician by the democrats correct?

Come down from the hyperbole. Just sayin.

Yes, I suppose "decimate" might be a little strong. But there's a train of thought that the surpluses create recessions, so maybe there's something to it.

12 surplus years of the last 75. The last one in 2001.

I like Billy Boy. Not everything about him, of course.

 

[ludin]

Agree it would take a President who considers it a priority AND a favorable economy, but there's another factor, too... the people. Regardless what the people say regarding the deficit, they still clamor for more and more from the government, and that stuff gets politicians re-elected, so until the people stop doing that I don't see anything changing.

Sometimes people need to be told no.
The government that is the issue no one wants to say no.
the fact is we can't afford this.