I want to preserve a basic safety net for the poor in the future, and I realize that to do so we can't continue our deficit spending. I particularly want to preserve Medicaid and disability checks. I think that we need to pay off the national debt without eliminating Medicare, Medicaid or social security (which is in a different fund). I would certainly be open to ideas of privatization, however. One of the things that I need to figure this problem out is some kind of debt calculator. I would add that some welfare programs, such as unemployment insurance, are unnecessary or even counterproductive, in my opinion. From meeting transients and beggars, what they need are social security disability checks and Medicaid, and I am sure that the elderly need Medicare. Can anyone propose any solutions? I appreciate it.

That's easy. Don't spend it if you don't want to pay for it.

Increasing spending without raising taxes is irresponsible.

Cutting taxes without cutting spending is irresponsible.

__________________
Man up.

I agree, but a someone on another site kept telling me that even if I cut Medicare, Medicaid and social security spending in half through a privatization plan, cut defense spending to pre-9/11 levels and repealed Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy I still couldn't pay off the debt with the surpluses (over a course of years, that is). He got so many facts wrong that I think he may just have been baiting me. He was a moderator, by the way, so I should thank you for being infinitely more professional than he was.

It depends on your time frame, I suppose. If we simply froze spending at current levels, eventually economic growth would catch up and pay off the debt. But it would take decades.

Cutting Medicare and Social Security in half, ratcheting back defense spending and repealing the tax cuts would make it happen a *lot* sooner. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'm putting together a spreadsheet on using debt to stimulate the economy, so maybe I'll dig up those numbers while I'm at it.

Speaking of the spreadsheet, using some *extremely* generous assumptions, even if we froze spending it would take until 2016 merely to pay off the debt Bush has larded on in order to stimulate the economy. But that will be its own thread once I get some time.

__________________
Man up.

I estimated (on the other site) that my plan would require roughly ten years to pay off the national debt. If you are saying that it would take eleven or slightly longer, that sounds about right. However, until I have solid numbers in front of me, I'm not going to make any final pronouncements. I'm not going to make an idiot of myself yet again.

Id have to disagree with you there raytri somewhat, US spending at current rates to government income and borrowings your talking centuries of uninterupted growth to pay off the debt.
Which is unlikely.
There will always be booms and busts. Likely recessions along the way, and possibly a depression.

__________________
"Better to die on you feet than live on your knees" - Emilio Zapata

This is why I started putting together a spreadsheet.

In FY2005, tax receipts were $2.11 trillion and the deficit was $328.7 billion.

If you assume the following:

1. Spending stays flat;
2. Tax receipts grow at 3 percent a year;
3. Interest on the deficit is 4.5 percent a year (the current 10-year Treasury rate)

Then you start running budget surpluses in 2010. By 2020 you're running a $900 billion *surplus* each year, enough to pay off the national debt in about a decade.

That, of course, requires spending to stay flat for 15+ years, and for those surpluses not to be turned into tax cuts. That just isn't going to happen. But it wouldn't take centuries.

Now, if you factor in spending growth, then you may well be looking at centuries. Even if spending grows just 2 percent a year, you don't start running surpluses until 2020. If spending grows 2.5 percent a year, you don't start running surpluses until 2035. If spending grows 3 percent a year, you never reach surplus status.

Anyway, i'll finish the spreadsheet and post it in its own thread so we can talk about what it means. Basically, I think it shows that debt-fueled stimulus is a pretty stupid idea.

__________________
Man up.

I say we abolish general taxation and every time the government wants to spend money, they have to raise a special tax just to pay that particular expense. That way, it would no longer work to accuse the other party of being the tax-and-spend party, pork barrel deals would come to a screeching halt, and (gasp!) politicians would be forced to be honest!

as taking in more than you spend! You don't need a Masters in Economics to see that one. The problem is shrinking government is a good deal harder than expanding it. Once you start a program it gets very hard to eliminate it or cut it. Just look at how hard it was for them to agree to cut pork to pay for Katrina. In the end they decided to keep the pork!

__________________
Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?

Why this one in particular?