Can you balance the federal budget?

The OP asks "Can you balance the Federal budget?", which is essentially nothing more than a yes or no question. Were this a poll question, am I to take it that the majority response would be "NO"?
Has the word "budget" been redefined in modern terms that I'm unaware of?
No wonder the U.S. and every other country in the world is in such debt.
Have we come to believe that government should be given the responsibility of "grand equalizer" in every facet of life? Democracy, as someone once wrote is little more than mob rule. Read history, wars come quite easily when enough people can be convinced that they are entitled to the fruits of others labors.

A budget is nothing more than a plan on how to spend and a reasonable budget also includes saving. I was always taught that when creating a budget, to always make sure you pay yourself something. For an individual or family, the basis of the budget is the family income, which normally remains fairly constant. Assuming someone who is gainfully employed, there are normal expenditures, and there are other expenditures which exceed the ability to purchase outright. One can create debt and still balance their budget. Debt is nothing more than an unfulfilled obligation. While individuals and families budget based on the expected income of the individual or family, and not our neighbors, we seem to have come to the view that government has the right to budget based upon the income of the Nation. Perhaps a side question should have been asked along with the OP question, "Would you prefer free market capitalism, or socially engineered communism as the form of government?" The former guarantees the individual nothing more than what the individual can provide for him/her self allowing success both great and small, as well as failure. This places demands on the individual. The latter guarantees the same level of mediocrity for the vast majority, and demands little of the individual other than acceptance of what the ruling class demands of them.

So I ask only "Should the Federal budget be balanced?" allowing that there would be exceptions on occasion where it could not be.

Pointing out that the National debt is growing enormously, nearly $13 trillion today, at what point would others consider the country bankrupt? At some point in time the piper is going to demand payment. It won't be during my time, so I guess I shouldn't really care. Isn't that what most everyone feels?

Screw debating, how about some rational discussion instead?

 

You know guys this thread was supposed to be fun. It's not an argument on whether a budget can be balanced, or what you would personally do. It was supposed to be a fun game in that link which was actually really well developed and had a lot of choices to pick from of the actual political possibilities on the table at the moment from both parties, to pick what you wanted, and see what your final 10 year outlook was like.

Christ people do that instead.

 

Try about $1.7 trillion, up from less than $800 billion a year or so ago. All world currencies combined amount to only about $17 trillion.

What's the fun of the "game" you suggest? Instead of posing the question "Can you balance the federal budget?" as the title of the OP you should have titled it "Play this nonsensical game if you're bored."

 

The game is actually more realistic than most of the opinions put forward in this thread since it's actually based in political reality.

 

Really, it's only based on a 'subset' of political reality. The games intent is to provide the player with a very select group of choices, which even go to length to provide more cuts than expenditures, in a way that leaves the illusion that government is doing a pretty good job of spending.

Have fun playing these kinds of games if you find them entertaining. At least they provide a means of ignoring the "real" political reality.

 

The choices put forward are the main choices put forward by both parties and the point is to show how hard it is to actually balance the current budget.

If you were president and sent a budget to congress just automatically cutting 25% of the budget, raising the marginal tax rate to 85%, cutting the military budget in 1/2, legalizing and taxing all drugs, ect, they'd just laugh at you.

 

no, but I can balance a straw on my erection

 

It would be much easier if the entire list of budget items were being looked at, but that would make the intended point much more difficult to be made.

I hope you're not trying to imply that I've made such a suggestion.

Just a side note, but several decades ago the Georgia State government created a budget and later discovered that the budget they approved would leave a surplus based on the revenues projected. They immediately reconvened in order to add the projected surplus to the budget to be spent. One reason stated was fear the citizens might start demanding taxes be lowered if they saw a surplus. It is okay to spend more than is projected, but not less. Government can always find a place to spend but never find a way to cut spending. Spending can become addictive, especially when it's not your own money.

Is there any point to these threads at all? Other than just sounding off?

 

Welllll yes, but political reality is the whole problem.

 

Yes by allowing the Bush Tax cuts to expire, further raising Taxes on those who make more than $250,000 per year, then cutting federal spending, primarily in the area of Defense, I was able to balance the budget in 6 years. While I was at it, I removed the $100,000 cap on Social Security and lowered the retirement age to 55. This brings Social Security back into the green in just a couple years and by lowering the retirement age I increase employment by taking the oldest and highest paid workers out of the job market. Unfortunately if I actually could do this I would be assassinated by some Ayn Rand Libertarian.

 

Sounds good, but I doubt it would accomplish the results you expect. There are ways to get around paying social security, while earning huge sums of money. Although the way things are headed, it may not be long before government and unions will be running everything, setting prices, wages, salaries, and even production levels.

If you're running a business, paying yourself a salary of $250K/yr with a tax rate of 30% and taxes are increased to 50%, you should respond by increasing your salary to $350K/yr or more. $250K - 30% = $175K and $350K - 50% = $175K. And this could be accomplished by reducing your workforce, and/or raising your products price. Most often actions create reactions, or you might call them consequences. The problem with government is that when it's actions create undesirable consequences, it most often responds with 'corrective' actions that produce additional undesirable consequences. A free market system, unencumbered by government controls and tinkering, although not perfect allows the market to fluctuate naturally. Products no longer desirable cease to be manufactured, eliminating the jobs they once sustained, while newer and more desirable products and jobs are created in their place.

Ayn Rand and George Orwell, each in their own way, may one day become recognized as two of the greatest 20th century visionaries, both having an uncanny ability to fictionalize events prior to their achieving the status of fact.

 

Mad

It’s difficult to know where a thread might lead.

*

Autumnbreeze

Sorry for my ‘baiting’ behaviour but slogan politics and evasion annoy me and that’s why Indie got me annoyed (oh no I’ve now gone and done it again).

*

Shadow

Maybe you should read up on why the gold standard was dropped.

Cutting spending in a recession has a habit of creating a depression.

*

Indie

You’re still not really saying anything of substance for example you seem to be claiming that things can be resolved by tackling much simpler and easier problems.

What are these and in what way would they resolve the underlying problems?

Now while you have brought up and championed the free market approach I don’t think anyone in the thread has bought up communism, now while the spirit of Keynes seems to have drifted through some posts those ideas are far from a communist although many on the left see there logic as do many on the right.

To me the problem with a ‘free market’ economic system is that it has no mechanism for dealing with a crash (besides letting things fall or robbing the public purse) and any move toward it would just bring a system closer to a plutocratic tyranny.

*

Number6

LOL

*

 

The problem is that any move toward free market principles strengthens the hands of wealth and if that route continues to be taken wealth gets strong enough to corrupt the system to work in its own interests.
That is why there never has been and never will be a ‘free market’.

To me the ‘free market’ model always seemed like a lie, a con game meant to fool the gullible. This was because it proponents seem to be claiming that they were a complete model that could deal with boom or bust, when in fact it wasn’t anything of the sort, it was in fact not even half a model, it wasn’t very good in boom times (except for wealth) and didn’t have any way of dealing with busts.

That is why when the neo-liberal model inevitably fails Keynesian ideas are brushed off and used.
But that system is untenable – Keynesian ideas in the low periods meaning the general population pays for the recovery and neo-liberal ideas in the up time which not only create the conditions for a down turn to happen but also means that wealth gains the profits and the general population gain little (or get poorer).

So why did such a bad model gain prominence?

It has been heavily and expensively lobbied for.

Conspiracy or lobbying?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=314393&f=36

The opposing views supposed ‘failures’ were screamed loudly while its own failures were white washed over or spined to look like others failures like the old chestnut that failure was due to the system not being ‘free’ enough while even the tiniest success on its part were trumpeted as huge triumphs.

(see ‘A brief history of neoliberalism’ by David Harvey or ‘The shock doctrine’ by Naomi Klein for more details)

Now some argue that some strands of ‘free market’ thinking were always about creating a corporatist system but others are pure - but that doesn’t seem to fit in with the history and it certainly doesn’t explain why there are still many on the right who cling passionately to the corrupted free market ideas.

I think many people became corrupted along the way just as the system was, but to me the problem wasn’t the type of ‘free market’ solution; it was the free market solution.

Because all free market systems favour wealth, so the ‘freer’ a market system becomes the more wealth takes over power until a tipping point is reached and that’s when wealth re-orders things to its own interests and if left unchecked forms a tyranny of the wealthy.

So in fact there never has been a totally and completely ‘free market’ because long before that could be achieved wealth has taken over and taken control, subverting the levers of government to do its bidding.

As observed in ‘The Predator State’ by James K. Galbraith about wealth’s recent behaviour

Oh wealth and it’s cronies still claim that a ‘free market’ is what they want and what would ‘really make things work’ properly. You only have to look at all those well financed free market think tanks and well paid lobbyists still out there and unbelievably still being listened to and taken seriously even when what they have been claiming for has only ever resulted in wealth becoming more wealthy and powerful and the supposed ‘freer’ system coming more under there control and corrupted to their interests.

The mirage of a real ‘free market’ is a trap set up by wealth to ensnare the gullible.

Because take that road and long before the destination is ever reached the real drivers take a fork to somewhere completely different.

Edited version of OP at - Free market = plutocratic tyranny.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

 

As I’ve mentioned the US is not alone in facing economic problems (look at the EU), this is a global situation.

And I don’t think we are out of deep water yet so I believe it’s actually too early to be going for a ‘balanced budget’ just yet.

But putting those concerns aside, what the question rises to me is what attitudes and ideas should underpin the socio-economic system. Because that will have an impact on how and when a ‘balanced budget’ would be achieved and what that achievement might mean for the majority of the people.

What is a society for, is it to be run to benefit a few or the many?

People have mentioned a number of things as possible ways to cut the deficit, legalisation of drugs, cutting military spending etc. but unless attitudes toward such things change those measure wouldn’t be possible. Others have put forward ideas that would do more harm than good, ideas that they don’t seem able to defend but none the less still passionately believe in, unless such attitudes are challenged mistakes could be repeated.

It’s not just simply about cutting a bit here or shaving a bit there, is about confronting the ideas and attitudes that stand in the way of a better future.

*

 

Problem is, it's a really loaded topic. And the fact that the 'fun game' was a Partisan talking piece in disguise didn't really help.

 

How is it partisan, it gives you the options currently put forward by both parties in congress. And it's made by two "nonpartisian" groups though Next10 does lean left and the Concord Coalition leans right.

 

Btw, Balbus. You are my new hero. <3 :iagree: :hurray:

 

This statement alone destroys all your credibility with me. Ayn Rand and George Orwell were about as accurate as Nostradamus was, which is to say, if you make 100 guesses, one of them is bound to be right. George Orwell was at least a decent writer, Ayn Rand on the other hand was terrible to the point of being nearly unreadable. Oh and John Galt was a whinny bitch.

 

Rands' "Atlas Shrugged" and Orwells' "1984" were both works of fiction, but what I find "uncanny" is how fiction sometimes becomes fact in the future. Rand and Orwell were quite opposites, politically, but they both had some good insight of what the future might bring as they wrote their fictional stories based on the political philosophies. If you are unable to glean nothing of value from one or the other, then perhaps Marx or Mao would be preferable reading which you might find more appealing.

The OP question appears to remain unanswered in terms acceptable to all, and perhaps will remain so, which tends to support "no" as the default answer.

 

Seems like any choice you make you end up with deficit lol