http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

I have said that neither the Ds or Rs are capable of bringing a balanced budget. I can see both sides now... Bush didn't do it, but Obama didn't do it more, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah...

Clinton brought a surplus, backed by a Gingrich's Congress. Good job to both. How do we get back to those times? Maybe we should go back to the budget levels under Clinton along with the taxation levels as well.

I have put forth a couple of recommendations.
1. A 20% cut in every department of the Federal Government (since neither side would agree on what to cut)
2. A flat tax that would be equal across the board of all economic strata.
3. Balanced Budget Amendment

All of these ideas were "poo-pooed" by the resident left-leaning denizens of Redscape without offering any alternative. This, to me, typifies the problem. Neither side will take the hit in the budget. Why not hit them both? I am all for a 20% budget hit on the military, as well as the food stamp agencies. XXXXXX says there is waste and room to cut, but will not recommend it due to the fact that someone who is deserving might get cut. That is why we have social workers to administrate the program.

A flat tax that would bring "wealthy" people to pay their fair share... Pick a number and make it applicable to everyone, without deductions. YYYYYY says that the wealthy need to pay their fair share, but XXXXXX says fairness is relative. Interestingly, YYYYYY would never give a number on what he thought the "wealthy" should have to pay. To me that shows that ANY percentage would not be enough in his never to be humble opinion.

The Balanced Budget Amendment could be passed by either side if either wanted it. It could have provisions that would allow exceeding the budget in times of national emergency, as long as a super-majority of both houses would approve along with presidential signature. Again, XXXXXX said this would not work as it would be too restrictive. This would be the responsibility of the elected officials to ensure that national safety was maintained.

What plans would others give? Do not get into the weeds of "the other side will destroy this" and "the other side is bad". Say what needs to happen. I have given my ideas above.

I am feeling verklempt, talk amongst yourselves...

bbauska wrote:All of these ideas were "poo-pooed" by the resident left-leaning denizens of Redscape without offering any alternative. This, to me, typifies the problem.

No, your selective memory is all that's 'typical'.

I presented a range of progressive tax rates that are somewhere between what you guys have and what would be seen as pretty low in much of Western Europe. You didn't like them, sure, but there was an alternative.

On budget cuts, I said that rather than a strict across the board cut it would make more sense to set a target, and then go to each department to say what they could cut with no impact, what the effect would be of an on-target cut, and what could be done with an above-target cut. It's not about horse-trading, but about what makes sense. Personally, even though I'm a lefty, one area that I am reluctant to see cuts in is policing.

Again, I posited an alternative, but as you don't like it, or it's not a pat enough answer, you pretend none was put forward.

My main position on taxation is that if people are on minimum wage (or effectively minimum wage), then they are on what is essentially judged to be the least one can live on. So taxing that income (as a 'flat tax with no deductions' would imply) seems to be unfair, unless of course you increase the minimum wage to make it neutral (which would hit many businesses very hard). Similarly, I think that it's not unreasonable at all to ask those who get most out of society to contribute more. Which means taxing the rich more as a percentage of their income. It's also the case that it will affect them less. It's not even much of a disencentive to become more wealthy as long as the marginal rates are not too high.

On the budget, one issue is that actually the USA (like many other countries) needs to be more open and honest about the simple issue that 'you get what you pay for'. A deficit caused by recession is one thing. A deficit that accrues during a period of growth is evidence that the government of the day (and/or the people who elected them) are unable to accept this simple idea. Like you say, the R's and D's as currently constituted seem unable to deal with the deficit. Of course, the one time it happened that there was a balanced budget meant a D President and an R Congress (the other way around, as per much of the 1980s didn't work either).

However, the problems are complex. You would like to think that a simple few ideas will sweep them away. Rarely is it the case that a complex problem has a simple solution. The main concern I would have is that a simple solution is more likely to not take into account marginal cases, odd unintended consequences and the sheer magnitude of the issue.

Communism, Fascism, Absolute Monarchy... all are simple solutions to 'how to run a country'. And all are massively flawed, as well as coming along with a load of dogma. I worry, Brad, that you are becoming bogged down in dogma. You want a flat tax, or nothing else. You want a flat reduction across all budgets, or nothing else.

No wonder you have forgotten/ignored the alternatives I've put up. You are blinkered to your own ideology.

Thank you for your input. Position noted...