@parados,
parados wrote:
Meanwhile you work long and hard to never present any numbers.
Rhetoric doesn't do you any good if you don't have numbers george. The simple fact of the matter is, cutting alone doesn't add up to a balanced budget unless you are willing to make drastic cuts that you are not naming.
I have pointed out that income taxes barely cover half of what is in the present budget that isn't currently funded by Trust funds
You are again beating a dead horse. No one (I'm aware of) has suggested that cutting government spending alone will cure our combined budget & economic growth crisis. Equally absurd is the notion proffered by some that new taxes alone will do the job.
We need government policies that will reduce spending; promote economic growth, and, after some increased level of economic activity is restored, rationalize our tax system in a way that eliminates harmful tax evasion and improves revenue without reducing economic growth.
Unfortunately the current Administration appears to be focused on everything else.
You appear to be very focused on the static arithmetic of the current budget, but forgetful of the fact that it was a steep decline in economic activity that turned a problem into a crisis. The solution should, appropriately, be more focused on restoring economic activity (as opposed to extended payments to people for not working) in the short term than in extracting further taxes from a stagnant economy that is also being hobbled by expanded government regulation.
parados wrote:
Quote:I do want to see reductions in entitlement programs and unemployment benefits. However, I also recognize that, untill those changes are enacted by law, they properly have the first claim on government revenues, particularly those specifically earmarked for them. That shouldn't be too hard for you to understand.
But you fail to address the problem that UNLESS you are willing to take money from those trust funds and not repay it, you will never balance the budget. You want it both ways george, in a mathematically impossible fashion.
No. I believe that unless we alter entitlements, particularly including SS and Medicare we will have a demographically unsustainable burden on our economy - very much as Europe is facing today (though generally less severe).
As above, we need to truly stimulate new private sector economic activity in the short term. That isn't accomplished by Federal giveaways to the favored constituents of either party, and it isn't accomplished by an expanded regulatory chokehold on the entrepreneurs who create jobs; the suppression of petroleum extraction in Alaska or on our Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts; the mandated shutdown of half of our electrical power generating capability; or payoffs to backward-looking and anacronistic labor unions. More importantly, it won't be accomplished by added taxes designed to sustain entitlement programs we won't be able to sustain in the long term under any scenario due to the demographic changes noted above.
These problems require more than the self-serving and static arithmetic you appear to favor. I do recognize your inclination to change the question as the conversation takes unfavorable (to you) turns.