Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

Rob, I'm afraid that's not true at all.  Mandatory spending (SS, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.) is 56% of the federal budget for FY11.  The base defense budget (excluding war costs) is $550b, only slightly more than just Medicare taken by itself.

Edited by Padraic - February 07 2011 at 20:22

I apologize for my repeated long absences. I am having a very busy semester. But I try to stop by every now and then!

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: Does that shows that for a few years in 2000's the US had a surplus? And that the smallest size government has had in the recent years was in the same year?  How the hell do you get out of a situation like the one predicted for 2020 and up? Printing more money? (worse) Raising taxes to 90%? Wouldn't it be quite the more reasonable just cutting spending?  We once ran budget surpluses even though it seems so foreign now. Honestly, you probably don't. As Pat said below, revenues can't be indefinitely increased just by taxation. A corresponding growth in the economy would also have to occur. Even so, our economy is not growing even remotely close to the rate at which our debt is growing, as illustrated by the chart. You can print the money, but then you destroy your currency. This is why spending has to be cut. You can't tax your way out of a deficit, it doesn't work. Spending must be cut. EDIT: The last time we had a true surplus was in the 50s I think. Even Clinton's 'surplus' was not a true surplus. It's more of a manipulation of borrowing from non-budgetary sources so that it appears to be a surplus.

I'm an optimistic person, but I have lost all hope that America can pull itself out of this socialist whirlpool without a complete economic meltdown. No politicians (and few voters) have the stomach to cut spending in the ways it needs to be cut, even in the face of financial collapse. You are absolutely right that taxes and monetary policy will solve nothing.

Well there you go.


Also anyone else think Nixon was actually the closest we had to socialism?
I believe for a few years he was given wage and price controls.
Not to mention he was a big social spender and created the EPA. To go along with his liberal foreign policy.
THAT COMMIE!

The T wrote: Does that shows that for a few years in 2000's the US had a surplus? And that the smallest size government has had in the recent years was in the same year?  How the hell do you get out of a situation like the one predicted for 2020 and up? Printing more money? (worse) Raising taxes to 90%? Wouldn't it be quite the more reasonable just cutting spending?

We once ran budget surpluses even though it seems so foreign now.

Honestly, you probably don't. As Pat said below, revenues can't be indefinitely increased just by taxation. A corresponding growth in the economy would also have to occur. Even so, our economy is not growing even remotely close to the rate at which our debt is growing, as illustrated by the chart. You can print the money, but then you destroy your currency.

This is why spending has to be cut. You can't tax your way out of a deficit, it doesn't work. Spending must be cut.

EDIT: The last time we had a true surplus was in the 50s I think. Even Clinton's 'surplus' was not a true surplus. It's more of a manipulation of borrowing from non-budgetary sources so that it appears to be a surplus.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - February 07 2011 at 14:18

Brian, I made a great discovery (among many others) in the last few weeks: 

If there's ever a Rep who wanted my support....there's a certain governor of NJ and NJ has the highest property taxes in the country.
Still not heard a mention of it.

Just saying, if someone wanted to cut some taxes and actually relieve the middle class like people claim.....
*whistles*

Does that shows that for a few years in 2000's the US had a surplus? And that the smallest size government has had in the recent years was in the same year? 

Here's a chart for everyone to enjoy:

Yeah. The system will just become more and more burdensome and less and less of a benefit. Medicare is a much scarier problem.