Poll: When will the U.S. balance its budget?
RedTiger
Posts: 5,608 ✭
Simple question. What say you? When do you believe the U.S. will again have a balanced Federal budget?
There is no need for political statements, because there is plenty of political vitriol all over the Internet coming from both sides.
chart is from
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html link
There is no need for political statements, because there is plenty of political vitriol all over the Internet coming from both sides.
chart is from
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html link
0
Comments
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>Simple question. What say you? When do you believe the U.S. will again have a balanced Federal budget?
There is no need for political statements, because there is plenty of political vitriol all over the Internet coming from both sides.
chart is from
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html link
<<< plenty of political vitriol all over the Internet coming from both sides. >>>
Sorry to say but it seems to me you've already sorta done this with the chart making the current deficit appear to be not as bad as it is in reality. It's not that difficult to manipulate the meaning of statistics to fit almost any agenda, but the bottom line, without going into a dissertation of how times are much different in our country than during WW2 and even during the 1980's as far as global competition and other economic matters, is that this current deficit is horrendous and unsustainable, and can and will ruin our country and must be addressed now, now later.
Sorry again but although there isn't a need for political vitriol, it is basically impossible to make predictions and forecasts about PM prices without an evaluation of the political climate. So to answer your question, there is no doubt in my mind that under say a Rick Perry, that there would be a balanced budget...however under a Barack Obama it will never happen and it won't even be close.
Folks who have not solved the budget quandary in the nyt puzzle
should take a minute to do so. Solving the puzzle will show you
that almost everything you have been told about how "hard" the
fix is, has been a LIE.
HINT: "Read My Lips," and you will balance the budget."
nyt budget puzzle
.........................
After you have solved the puzzle, try to grasp the FACT that you
have accomplished nothing.
With as much as $300T in ACTUAL unfunded liabilities, worrying
about "balanced budgets" is like landscaping the rim of an active
volcano. ONLY a blowoff eruption will relieve the latter and ONLY
a total default will fix the former.
In your lifetime, the entire debt will be monetized; that equals
"default." Got Gold? Then, worry not.
Wow, so far 40 votes, and 78% are voting NEVER, with half of those saying real default (not monetized default, but actual suspension of payments). What happened to the happy denizens of Euro-Baleyville that voted 30% that the Euro will out live us (link)?
I'm not sure what to conclude from the two surveys, but to me, the odds of U.S. default are much lower than the European Union breaking up. If giving odds, I'd say 95% that the Euro goes before the U.S. defaults. The U.S. can monetize their debt by printing more money. The Euro can only hang together if disparate nations that don't like each other, continue to want to donate money to each other.
This survey is probably suffering from recency bias of the latest budget battle, and the priorities of the current political leadership. Do folks really think there will never be another Clinton, Kennedy or Eisenhower in the White House? Never? There will be another president, if not in 2012 then in 2016. And then another President after that in another four or eight years, unless the republic falls. Do folks feel that there will never be a healthy, growing economy in this country again? Never? Wow, the doom and gloom disease is worse that I would have guessed here.
I believe the budget will likely be balanced again, though my guess is later than sooner. I'd estimate 60/40 chance that the chief gets reelected so that pushes out the chances by another six years (odds of reelection would be a separate thread). Still, if socialist Italy can reign in their spending and balance their budget, why can't the U.S.? If socialist Greece can pass an austerity budget that cuts government salaries by 30%, and payroll headcount by 20%, I believe an austerity budget can come to the U.S. Already the US post office is proposing an additional 20% in job cuts. As I have cited a couple of times, when the average Federal worker makes $125k in wages and benefits, there is some room to cut wages and benefits. The average private sector worker now makes less than half of what Federal workers make. Average private sector workers have already taken a 15% cut in real reported wages in this recession, mostly due to higher unemployment and being forced into lower paying jobs.
A footnote about the chart, it is a U.S. government chart with their optimistic projections for the next five years. Reality will likely be different from the projected line. The deficit is likely to stay near the 10% line. Perhaps higher, if another recession shrinks GDP and tax revenue. However, most voting in the poll were not fooled by the projections.
I know Clinton and others are given credit for balancing budgets but I don't believe we've had a true budget surplus since Andrew Jackson. Clinton used social security revenues and
other non-GAAP methods to achieve his "surplus." The president can propose a BB, but having the senate and congress approve it is a much different matter. Then the electorate has
to go along with it.... or 50% of them will vote those guys right back out if they aren't kept on the free payouts. It will be an interesting battle, taking potentially a decade or more.
Read a piece by Krauthammer today that said the process is working, it's just very noisy and slow to turn the massive aircraft carrier USS Economy. He says the system is working
perfectly as designed. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. A debate for another time.
roadrunner
<< <i>Storm888, does that $300 TRILL figure of unfunded liabilities include an otc derivatives loss factor by govt backed banks (ie TBTF), Fannie and Freddie, etc? >>
/////////////////
Yes.
And, MANY other parasitic international entities are also at the trough.
"Balancing" the annual budget solves nothing. "Default" - via monetization -
solves it all, and sets the stage for reconstruction.
Absent such default, Balkanization is the ONLY viable solution. I can happily
live with either eventuality.
BTW - the needed change just began at 1:00PM EST today - watch and enjoy it.
but big oil, cattle, Big Drug Companies, auto Industry and mega
financial institutions. It also must include Fat cats paying more
in taxes, capturing off shore money and even the poor paying
something. Everyone from corporations to people will have to
contribuye to the pot and the solution. However, I do not think
It will happen until all Fed Elections, must be financed by Fed Money
with absolute caps on total expenditures for each type of office. For the
Parties to spend upwards of two billion dollars for one election for Pres
is just rediculous.
Camelot
<< <i>To balance the budget will take not only your recommendations,
but big oil, cattle, Big Drug Companies, auto Industry and mega
financial institutions. It also must include Fat cats paying more
in taxes, capturing off shore money and even the poor paying
something. Everyone from corporations to people will have to
contribuye to the pot and the solution. However, I do not think
It will happen until all Fed Elections, must be financed by Fed Money
with absolute caps on total expenditures for each type of office. For the
Parties to spend upwards of two billion dollars for one election for Pres
is just rediculous. >>
Points understood...but the bottom line is that we need to restrict or stiffle those who are parasitic to our society in a financial manner. I don't think it's debatable in the least that of course deadbeats, as well as government unions and trial lawyers are parasitic to society - they take in much, much more than they contribute...with the liberal media beating the drum for them for various reasons. I'm not saying at all that we don't need government unions and trial lawyers, but two points...government union workers are making approximately double what private sector workers are making for the equivalent work...that is ridiculously absurd, almost beyond belief, and that needs to change now...and only trial lawyer's mothers could possibly believe that their trial lawyer sons and daughters don't extort money through the legal system...and that needs to end...tort reform is a must in order to initiate positive change in our country.
The other industries you mentioned...well I'm not saying it couldn't be tweaked, but they are huge contributors to our society...big oil helps run our cars and power plants, drug companies find solutions to health problems and save lives, cattle well we eat it - it's food (LOL), auto companies provide transportation, and financial institutions enable banking services and dependable monetary transactions and assist people with credit and mortgages...sorry for stating the obvious but these folks are by far are a net big mega contributor to society.
And you're absolutely right...it will take everyone contributing to the cause...for example let's be honest...social security has in reality been a straight tax all these years, nothing was ever put away in some so-called social security account...Democrats and Republicans alike are responsible for this outrage so the bottom line with social security is nobody is technically entitled to anything because no money was ever put away for that...it was one big fraud and facade by the government...so if we want to keep social security and extend monetary payments to senior citizens, then it must be in accordance to what the taxpayers can afford, and not some unsustainable promises made by lying politicians many years ago.
As far as medicare...tort reform can go a long way towards fixing that problem...and allow medical insurance companies to compete in all states in the free market, same way as auto insurance companies do, in which they seem to compete and offer services fairly well in the marketplace.
Point understood about the election money...I just think limiting the amounts spent sets a bad precedent there for a variety of reasons...and besides, it's been shown in a number of cases with some politicians way outspending their opponents, and they lose anyway if their basic message isn't what the citizens who vote want to hear. With the advent of the internet, I think quite a wide array of ideas get across, and overspending in the media doesn't have nearly an affect on voters than it did before the internet - although it probably still does on elderly voters who don't have the internet and they basically only watch TV and read the newspaper for their current information...but even then, talk radio has vastly expanded over the years so good information is disseminated and can be found there as well even if someone doesn't have the internet.
if that's too political, my answer is 15 years, just not the way they are dancing now.