[Fastskiguy]

Originally Posted by PugMom

ever since i began paying attention to politics in my 20's, i've always heard the warnings on national debt. it never seems to get better, only much worse. will it ever end?

I was going to post the same thing. Dire warnings in the 80's yet we're still here and things are better than ever. Maybe it really doesn't matter. But it *has* to, doesn't it?

Joe

[Fastskiguy]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Raising taxes on the rich will not solve the problem. But, increasing the number of people who pay taxes could solve the problem. A tax system where half of the people pay no income tax is absurd. Everyone should have skin in the game.

Seems like they could increase taxes 5% across the board, cut spending 5% across the board, increase/decrease both 1% every year until things are under control. But I'm sure there are plenty of plans that would work that nobody can agree upon

Joe

[Bwanajim]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

Interesting article on global debt.

The world is sitting on a $91 trillion problem. ‘Hard choices’ are coming | CNN Business

The most disturbing language is that “Tackling America’s debt problem will require either tax hikes or cuts to benefits, such as social security and health insurance programs.”

The good news is that we may have another 25-30 years before the world economy collapses.

I am glad that I am not graduating high school this year.

Any comments or suggestions from any economists or financial experts? Is it as dire as predicted? Or does it exaggerate the problem?What are the solutions?

Real simple, government has to stop wasteful spending and they won’t. Why are we spending? I think $60 billion on student loan bail out? Why are we spending billions on illegals coming into the country and we’re not even taking care of our military?? The government spent $6 billion on EV charging stations and only have six installed so far. Every bill passed by congress should only have one item on it. 20 or 30 people tack on stuff for their district like $5 million for a library or $10 million for a zebra museum or some stupid crap.
The one thing our founding fathers screwed up was not putting term limits on Congress.
I’m afraid it’s too late now🤬

[Cliff Fr]

I doubt term limits would do anything.

[SoCalGal]

To countries we owe money to, we should say, "For the foreseeable future, we can pay only principal, not interest, until the debt is paid. This may change; we'll let you know."

To government leaders, we should say, "Reduce the size of government by at least 25% within five years, or we, the taxpayers, will stop paying taxes." With enough citizens withholding taxes, there's no way the IRS could pursue them all.

To the American people, our leaders should say, "We must undertake an austerity program. We can no longer pay for other countries' security; they must pay us."

The above would be just a start, but I believe we can greatly reduce the national debt.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Raising taxes on the rich will not solve the problem.

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?

[Cliff Fr]

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.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Bwanajim

Real simple, government has to stop wasteful spending and they won’t. Why are we spending? I think $60 billion on student loan bail out? Why are we spending billions on illegals coming into the country and we’re not even taking care of our military?? The government spent $6 billion on EV charging stations and only have six installed so far. Every bill passed by congress should only have one item on it. 20 or 30 people tack on stuff for their district like $5 million for a library or $10 million for a zebra museum or some stupid crap.
The one thing our founding fathers screwed up was not putting term limits on Congress.
I’m afraid it’s too late now🤬

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

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by SoCalGal

To countries we owe money to, we should say, "For the foreseeable future, we can pay only principal, not interest, until the debt is paid. This may change; we'll let you know."

To government leaders, we should say, "Reduce the size of government by at least 25% within five years, or we, the taxpayers, will stop paying taxes." With enough citizens withholding taxes, there's no way the IRS could pursue them all.

To the American people, our leaders should say, "We must undertake an austerity program. We can no longer pay for other countries' security; they must pay us."

The above would be just a start, but I believe we can greatly reduce the national debt.

We could if there was interest in doing so.

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

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Rich Iwaszko

3 1/2 years has nothing to do with it...........it went out of whack after a balanced budget existed...........since then its all their faults, in that way no one is to blame........just rhetoric...........its a non issue until action is taken not rhetoric

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

[Runway48]

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.

[SHIBUMI]

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.........

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

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

[LeRoySmith]

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?

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Runway48

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.

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.

[Fastskiguy]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

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