The Glade 4.0

In 2012, the US federal government ran a budget deficit of roughly $1 trillion (out of roughly $3.5 trillion in total spending). I think it's safe to say that many/most Gladers favor rapidly reducing that deficit via spending cuts alone. For those of you who do think that, I'm curious (a) how fast you think that process should be (i.e. just cut $1 trillion of spending right now or phase it in over X years) and (b) what you think the net economic impact of that would be over the next 1, 5 and 10 year periods.

You'd need to cut over $1 trillion because you need to start paying DOWN the debt.

_________________

Implement 2% cuts in REAL spending over the next ten years.

Economic impact would be an increase in the growth of the overall economy. I lack sufficient data to indicate how much.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I'd prefer a shockstyle cut approach. Instant cuts of at least half the current spending.

This prevents scheduled cuts from being reduced by a future congress or pres and hits the systems that are dependent on that funding in a way that makes them severly disinclined to associate with again and prevents a long lasting wore of attrition by defunding public sector unions over night. There will be a big to the death fight over it but then their members whom they depend on funding vanish and the union either ceases to exist or losses massive power to fight against future cuts.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Shock 'n Awe style, rip the bandaid off. People are gonna be upset, things are gonna suck for a while, but we're talking long-term here. Life will go on and we'll all be better off.

From Al Jazeera America (really liking them a lot):

_________________

Balance the budget by 2025-2030. I think gradual reductions would be better. Agencies need time to transition to a lower budget while still being effective. Medicare, Social Security, and Defense all need major reforms and that's not something that should happen overnight.

I don't think we should worry about paying down the debt we've accumulated though, that's a waste of time in my opinion. The amount we have now is pretty manageable, we just need to reduce the deficit so it doesn't spiral out of control.

isnt that a bit like saying "I'm only going to pay the interest on my credit cards and never pay them off"?

Granted gov't debt isn't like individual debt, and actually has useful functions as well.

There's nothing preventing Congress from going back and repealing your "instant cut" plan. You'd just make people panic and they'd rush to elect representatives who would increase spending back to where it was. You'd need to do it gradually to get the people on board with it, which will be necessary absent a dictatorship.

Yeah, the second part. If you have personal debt in a currency you control, and your creditors are happy to keep loaning you more because they like the interest they're receiving, there's nothing wrong with just paying interest. Maybe if some of your creditors were big and scary and you thought they'd come beat you up if you refused to pay it'd be a concern, but that's definitely not the case for the US.

Can't "rush to elect" can "wait to elect" or "try to recall". Oh well thats life. In the meantime those agencies are gone, the infrastructure is gone, the information is gone - all of that control and waste are just POOF. Hopefully sold olff as fast as the government auction sites can move it and the land space be sold on the market. Let them vote in new people - they'd have to spend years maybe decades trying to get back to the same level of **** up incompetent-advisarial regularion and bureacracy as they have now.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Something like this

http://www.conniemack.com/issues/penny-plan/

Essentially: End baseline budgeting, and cut 1 percent per year (ideally across the board) on top of that. It would only take 7 years to balance the budget at which point you cap spending at a point percentage of GDP, Connie Mack says 18% Personally that may be a bit high, but whatever.

If that's too harsh, you could do the same thing and only cut .5% and it would theoretically take twice as long, I think.

Ultimately, you need to end the baseline increase, and either freeze or (preferably) cut from there.

What cuts? I think across the board is the only way it's going to get done. Entirely across the board, no sacred cows, yes that means <insert your favorite project here>.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

This

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Bring the troops home. Make the military a defensive force with offensive capability and cut the fat. If other countries want our military presence in their borders, they can request and pay for it.

Cut all subsidies. If companies cannot compete, let the ones who can replace them.

Create a realistic welfare to work program with deadlines and consequences.

Remove the tax breaks for the wealthy.

Get corporate money out of government.

Make bribing a politician a felony with mandatory serious jail time for both parties. Define bribing a politician so everyone knows exactly what it is.

Seriously work on job creation in the USA. How you do this without subsidies I'm not sure. More people working and paying taxes will reduce the deficit.

Congress does not get to exempt themselves from anything. If we have to do it, so do they.

Make companies responsible for the damage they cause. Make top executives responsible for the negative consequences of their decisions. No more bail-outs for corporate idiocy or stupidity.

Build more railroads.

Tax religions.

Tax nonprofits that make over a determined amount or pay their top executives more than 10 times the average worker salary.

End the war on drugs. Make everything legal and taxed.

End foreign aid. No exceptions. (Humanitarian disaster relief case by case, and only when requested.)

End Diplomatic Amnesty. If they do the crime, they do the time.

Boot the UN to some other country. Suggest it has a mandatory rotation through member states.

Return to Space. Develop everything we can. Start mining system resources. Do it right this time.

Remove the favored nation designations. If there is a tariff, everyone that imports that product pays it.

Eliminate asylum unless they can pay their own way. Tax asylum heavily. There are other countries with a heart. Let them take the political refugees for a few decades.

Term limits on all elected officials at any level. Stop making politics a lucrative career.

Pass the Buffet Amendment.

Reinstate windfall profits taxes.

Remove person status from corporations.

Make pork barrel politics a felony, enforce it. Mandatory not eligible for office part of the sentence.

No State gets more in benefits than it pays in taxes. Except disaster relief.

Limit presidential pardons. Remove predecessors from the list of those eligible for such. Anyone wanting full citizenship rights must take and pass classes similar to those for immigrants, and take the oath of citizenship.

Carefully define act of terrorism as a federal offense and make committing one a mandatory death sentence, two appeal maximum before the sentence is carried out. Don't set the bar ridiculously low.

Fully fund veteran rehab to repay them for their sacrifices and get them back in the workforce. Healthy vets with access to what they need generally make good workers. This is not universal. The current use, abuse, and set free without aid is treachery most foul.

Just a few ideas.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

If your credit cards had a 2% interest rate, it absolutely would be a good idea. Max out as many as they'll give you and invest the money, it's pure profit for you.

Invest at a profit? A guaranteed profit, at that? Is that what you think we do with the money?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Not guaranteed, no, but your odds of coming out behind are pretty miniscule. What is your point, anyways? Would you say it's bad financial advice for someone with a hypothetical 2% interest credit line to tell them to max out and invest said credit line?

/boggle

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

I have money in a 401(k) that guarantees me 3%. They almost certainly make a fair amount more than that 3% on their reinvestment of my money.

So, if I borrowed money at 2% and invested it at 3% I would be making the difference. Uncle Sam would probably take most of my profit, so I would look for better returns.

Rynar could probably show me a better way. That is his business.

2% on unsecured credit is not going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future. It makes no sense for the lending companies.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

You're making the point that we should borrow, as a country, because it is cheap to do so in the current environment. You attempted to bolster that argument by noting that better rates of interest can be almost guaranteed to those who would invest on margin. I'm asking you why you are making this argument in regard to the federal government, who has consistently displayed a devout inability to invest at a profit.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Slight surplus in 4 years. From there, maintain a surplus forever, the amount can vary - and debt will eventually be addressed.

At 2% (and the government borrows for less than 2%) you definitely make a profit based on inflation alone. In fact, since the government controls inflation via monetary policy, they can even control their profits.

That doesn't make it a good idea, economicly. The government may be making out like bandits, but the people are the ones that suffer for it. This inflation is just another form of taxation.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Depends. Inflation is generally a loss for savers and lenders but a gain for debtors (assuming their loans aren't pegged to inflation). Given how deeply in debt most American households are, I think slightly higher inflation would probably result in a net transfer of wealth from banks and credit card companies to regular people.

I don't know of any credit cards that aren't tied to inflation.

The problem being that the buying power of their income is being reduced right along with the buying power of their debt, and their incomes are not necessarily increasing at the same rate as inflation.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."