4 Votes
Debt Crisis
|
||
Political leaders from both parties have been forced into budget talks for days by President Obama. Each is steadfastly holding to their alleged constituent pledges and seem to be absolutely defiant to making any concessions to the other side. Democrats refuse to budge on curtailing entitlement programs. Republicans are adamant about not allowing tax increases. The President refuses to allow Congress to sweep the matter under the rug with another debt ceiling increase. CNN has a nice summary of the various proposals currently at play. What is the proper mix of acquiescence towards achieving a real solution?
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- How do you get from Brigham Young to Mitt Romney?, by Jackson about 1 year ago
- Possible Cuts to VA Benefits, by VnutZ over 1 year ago
- Potential Change to Military Retirement System, by VnutZ almost 2 years ago
- Clinton's 14 Proposals, by VnutZ almost 2 years ago
Print Friendly
Write an Article
They don't know or don't care by Occams
The Debt happens because government spending G > Tax income T
So the solution is to reduce G or increase T
Simple really. I wonder why they can’t see it.
In theory you can also increase exports E and decrease imports I but that is too hard for our crew, or , you can increase savings S beyond investment I, but that is too hard for us
The problem is that our politicians either don’t understand macro economics, or they think that applying the correct remedy is politically unacceptable.
We get the politicians we deserve.
I should think it's reasonably obvious by scottb
First, let me say, I object to the term “entitlement programs” for the spending the Democrats are seeking to protect.
Societies form governments in order to create certain benefits — common defense, economic stability, and so on. We decide that there are certain benefits we want that cannot effectively be provided by ordinary market forces, so we grant the government the power to make them happen.
While it’s reasonable to argue that certain programs may not be what we, as a society, really want, let’s remember that it was our duly appointed government that instituted every damn one of them. The Democrats are fighting for them because they legitimately believe them to be important.
Calling them “entitlement programs” is right-wing rhetoric. It’s the pretense that the programs are created to give undeserved “entitlements” to certain minorities at the expense of others. It’s intentionally misleading.
Anyway, as to addressing the problem, I should think it’s obvious that we need to raise taxes. A decade ago we chose to increase spending in order to wage a “war on terrorism” — it wasn’t an “entitlement program” or any sort of social program at all. To complicate matters, a poorly regulated financial system failed and we had to spend even more money to bail it out.
It’s time to pay the piper. Our choices are to cut spending — to end valuable social benefits — or to raise taxes. It’s easy to declare that some social program that doesn’t benefit you, directly, is “pork barrel”, “unnecessary entitlements”, and the like, but it’s nearly impossible to get real agreement on the subject.
Politicians are terrified of raising taxes, because it’s always unpopular. It’s time to suck it up and pay the debt we created. Using this as an opportunity for partisan attacks on social programs is beyond pathetic. It’s irresponsible.