It did in the thirties when no one was working and the rich had to pay to put people back to work. As the lower income tax base becomes smaller due to few job opportunities, who can foot the increased tax bill?

Like the old saying goes: there is no free lunch. Eventually it has to be paid for. I remember back when we had a budget surplus. There was talk then of paying down the debt with the extra money. That never happened.

Or put an ending date on everyone program that is passed. Agree that every bill passed should have one item on it.

Also the president should have a line item veto power

We could if there was interest in doing so.

Or no foreign aid till debt paid and only after balanced budget.

So 14 trillion more debt has nothing to do with it. :oops:

Every legitimate government has a fundamental obligation to protect its citizens. Beyond that, everything else is dependent upon the wealth of the nation. A nation that has debt exceeding its GDP is not wealthy. Being a politician is a really good gig that few want to give up. The easiest way to get re-elected is to give money away. Strick terms limits may not solve everything, but it may allow politicians to do what's right for the future of the country and remove the temptation to spend excessive amounts to garner votes for re-election.

Debt
 

It's obviously just numbers..........until someone is forced to deal with it.........no one in 20 years has stepped up to that plate.......so it's a non issue until then.........

The federal government collected nearly $4.5 trillion in revenue in fiscal year 2023. They spent ~$6.2 trillion in FY 2023. This is not a one or the other party problem, its an all government and all citizen issue.

Who can spend more than they make year after year and stay solvent?
Who in their right mind thinks this is 1 little tiny bit ok?

Of late I've been of the opinion that we should choose our office-holders, for whatever office from 1600 Pennsylvania on down to dog-catcher (do they still have those?) the same way we pick juries. Draw a name at random from a list of persons qualified to serve for whatever office needs to be filled, and the person drawn must either serve or have a darned good reason why not. One term only; following service that person is forever exempt from further drawings. Of course the bennies should be liberal: salary commensurate with the responsibilities of the position, free housing and living expenses for both the office holder and immediate family, travel and moving expenses as needed, plus full medical insurance for the office holder and family. His/her former job, together with expected advancements and pay increases, guaranteed to be there when his/her term is completed.

I challenge anyone to come up with a reason why such a system would be any worse than what we have now. I can't think of any. I CAN come up with quite a few reasons FOR such a system however.

You might not get top flight talent with that scenario and you need some semblance of continuity….but then again, the current system has given us two, um, interesting options for the next 4 years. I like your idea!

Joe

Which is why it is pathetic we keep reelecting the same people who caused this problem